people not covering their face who are exempt are abiding by the law; your proposal is to make it illegal for them to not wear a lanyard
what sort of society have we become? this isn't something i want any part of
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
UK face coverings discussion
- Thread starter Mag_seven
- Start date
- Status
what sort of society have we become? this isn't something i want any part of
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
If someone isn't wearing a mask then you have to assume they are exempt rather than breaking the law.
Not all exemptions are for medical reasons, so fixating upon asthma or breathing is unhelpful.
The law is written in such a way that if someone decides or states they are exempt, then they are de facto exempt. If you have a problem with that then write to your MP.
Personally I couldn't give a stuff either way, although I prefer to not be surrounded by masked people. I'd prefer we all went bare faced, I think the habit of putting damp cloth across our faces is disgustingly unhygienic, as well as looking ridiculous.
STINT47
Member
If you have the ability to diagnose if someone has asthma and or anxiety by looking at people from the other side of a train please volunteer with the NHS, they could use your skills.
As for wearing a lanyard not everyone wants to. I'm exempt and travelling is not that pleasant at the moment. I do wear the sunflower lanyard but that's my choice and not everyone wishes to and nor do they have to.
Unless people can prove that someone isnt exempt is it not best to leave them be? Especially if they do suffer from anxiety as being challenged can send it shy high.
That much is obvious from the rest of the post.
I think a more enlightened view might be that if there were not people trying to judge who is a 'won't' or a 'can't' then they wouldn't have anything to worry about.
I find your authoritarian right-wing views a little difficult to swallow in a caring society but i respect your right to hold them.
Each to their own (a rather uncommon proposition nowadays it seems, sadly) but personally I'm happy to see another human face. It is currently all too rare an experience, in this part of the country at least.
bramling
Veteran Member
Lanyards make some people feel safe:
This is completely irrational; I don't blame the person though, I blame the authoritarian regime we're currently living in, and the media reporting.
Supermarket staff: 'We feel unsafe when customers don't wear masks'
One shop worker tells us he wants to find a new job because of customers who don't wear masks.www.bbc.co.uk
I noticed that. It’s either safe or it isn’t, the presence of a lanyard makes no difference at all.
The level of daftness now being seen is becoming increasingly concerning.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Unfortunately this is completely untrue. One doesn’t have to look far on Facebook to find stuff like “I‘m sorry but these people with exemptions shouldn’t be allowed out, their exemption isn’t a good enough reason to risk giving me the virus”.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Personally I’d much rather people kept their distance (where possible) than faffed about with masks.
Unfortunately some people think masks mean that’s not necessary.
Last edited:
That was my point really - Aaron rightly or wrongly "feels" safe when confronted with a mask wearing customer, and he also seems to imply that he "feels" safe if someone is wearing a lanyard. We all know[1] that the whole premise is a load of codswallop, but Aaron might well be one of hundreds who share a similar misconception.
[1]I must admit here - I was on a train yesterday and a chap sat in the drop-down seats in the wheelchair space, so as to be with his large dog and small child in pushchair, and he didn't have a mask or a lanyard, and being only about four feet from me for over an hour I was feeling somewhat exposed. (Despite my scepticism about the whole thing.)
I can only assume he came under the "anxiety" category as he had no visible reason not to be compliant, but I think I would have felt more understanding if he was showing some reason for his exemption. It's not so much the risk, just the fact that as it's the law it would be reassuring to know why some people don't have to obey it.
Another guy on an earlier train across the aisle from me wore his over his chin for the entire journey. It's about time they abandoned any semblance of trying to enforce this as it only annoys people who do bother when they are sat near to others who don't.
What you have experienced there is a form of anxiety brought on by months of fear-mongering by the government. They have continually told everyone that everyone else is a risk to us, and we a risk to them. So ask yourself this, would you have batted an eyelid that this guy pre-covid? Would you have been monitoring his breathing and behaviour? If not then you need to just think about the actual risks. Was he coughing regularly, or did he appear to have a fever? If not, and at worst he might have a small chance of being pre-symptomatic, a small chance that he was asymptomatic, and a very, very big chance that he had no virus in him. Whichever of these is true, you might at worst have a small chance of catching it if he was symptomatic, and a much, much smaller approaching zero chance of getting it if he was not, and an absolute zero chance of getting it if he did not have the virus.
Its all about re-evaluating the actual risks to us, not echoing the fear-mongering tactics used by lazy ministers & civil servants to try to make their flawed policies work. This is not a go at you by the way, just some food for thought the next time it happens.
Skimpot flyer
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2012
- Messages
- 1,938
Well said, an excellent post
trainophile
Established Member
Okay, all points taken on board and accepted if not appreciated. Too many individual comments to reply to each one.
Final clarification from my POV. What’s to stop everyone deciding masks are inconvenient and they aren’t going to bother with them, and no-one is allowed to challenge them? If they really do no earthly good we might as well do that with immediate effect, safe in the knowledge that nobody can do anything about it.
I would certainly like to take that approach, and may well do so ongoing. Does that make me a bad person? More bad than wondering why others aren’t wearing them, or have them under their chins? After all, this argument is effectively confirming that the virus spread is not reduced whatsoever by the use of face coverings, in which case how do we get the law repealed?
Final clarification from my POV. What’s to stop everyone deciding masks are inconvenient and they aren’t going to bother with them, and no-one is allowed to challenge them? If they really do no earthly good we might as well do that with immediate effect, safe in the knowledge that nobody can do anything about it.
I would certainly like to take that approach, and may well do so ongoing. Does that make me a bad person? More bad than wondering why others aren’t wearing them, or have them under their chins? After all, this argument is effectively confirming that the virus spread is not reduced whatsoever by the use of face coverings, in which case how do we get the law repealed?
The police can challenge and issue Fixed Penalty Notices if appropriate. It's the same as any other law - enforcement is down to the police, but it can only be done with consent. If the vast majority did not comply then it would be unenforceable. However, it is effectively unenforceable in any case due to the way it has been drafted. Simply saying "I am exempt" when challenged is sufficient for no further action to be taken.
I suspect this was done deliberately - you can see there is going to be a huge furore when the mask law is repealed, there is going to be a loud section of the population forever frightened of COBID and forever convinced of the efficacy of the damp cloth. So a nice way for government to sidestep the issue, leave the law in place (perhaps until the end of the 2 year emergency powers) and just let compliance drop away quietly.
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 4,583
Oh, I agree but like I said later on in the post we've been indoctrinated. I'd happily have a mask less society now as hate the things.
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
Even though I wear my lanyard, I am deeply concerned by the over-authoritarian attitudes of rail enforcement officers and BTP patrolling my trains this week for mask compliance.
Interestingly, the 700's I have travelled on recently have been very busy and I have not seen any mask police on them - however, on my main-line trains that have not been busy at all, the masked police have made their presence... Perhaps this is just coincidence?
Interestingly, the 700's I have travelled on recently have been very busy and I have not seen any mask police on them - however, on my main-line trains that have not been busy at all, the masked police have made their presence... Perhaps this is just coincidence?
Even though I'm a bit of a loner most of the time and often don't like other people much (!), I absolutely refuse to subscribe to this idea that other human beings are dirty or dangerous biohazards. Masks are the most visible symbol of this, but all the other things too - sanitiser, distancing, one-way nonsense, etc. etc.
I understand why these things have gained traction - people need to feel in control, and these 'talismans' and 'rituals' (for lack of a better description, as there is a lot in common with religion here) offer some illusion of control against something otherwise invisible and silent.
But the price in this case is far too high, and I have very serious concerns for the future of any society where we are fearful of the mere existence of other people.
Most people with Asthma will display no obvious symptoms most of the time, so that tells you nothing.
I'm afraid it is unreasonable - the law and associated guidance specifically states that no "proof" is required. You may not like that, but afraid that's how it is.
jumble
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 1,496
I suppose there are fundamentally 5 types of people
People who believe they are effective and will therefore comply
People who believe they are waste of time but are not prepared to lie to the police by falsely claiming exemption and will therefore comply
People who believe they are waste of time and are prepared to lie to the police/TFL by falsely claiming exemption and will therefore not comply
People who believe they are waste of time and are too stupid to lie to the police/TFL by falsely claiming exemption and will therefore not comply
People who are exempt
I personally am in number 2 .
I find do it absurd to be on empty trains with no one near me and to have to be masked but the law is the law
Number 3 is the most tricky as you say because they are untouchable
I suspect the vast majority of the people who are fined are those who failed the famous "attitude test" rather than being caught without a mask
I doubt that anyone who has a mask on them and apologizes for breaking the rules claiming they were temporally feeling unwell would be fined as the fallout to the police would be too great
TFL apparently spoke to 113000 people and issued 500 fines according to an FOI
which is a ratio of 1 in 500
BTP 56000 with 92FPNs
roughly the same ratio
This does not sound like very effective enforcement
trainophile
Established Member
Brilliantly put. And to add that the more people who fall into categories 3, 4 and 5 and are observed doing so by people in certainly 2 and possibly 1, the more people will think "sod it" and join in.
bramling
Veteran Member
Hopefully. I had another one of those yesterday. Turns up in mask, sees me not in one, then after a couple of minutes of sheepishly looking around the mask found itself on the table, and remained there for the rest of the journey.
Of course the trouble with that is the mask being on the table, as presumably it was then put on before leaving the train. So germs from the table then find their way to the mask, making it worse than pointless.
This is pretty common on DOO trains. I have seen any active on-board enforcement on GTR at all thusfar - apart from a couple of vigilantes.
Skimpot flyer
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2012
- Messages
- 1,938
There is a sixth category. Those that don’t want to wear them but ‘rebel’ by having it under their chin, ready to wear it properly should enforcement officers appear, or when they get to their destination.
I have zero respect for these people. If they are so against masks, they should have the audacity to go bare-faced and claim to be exempt. It’s not like they are required to carry proof
I have zero respect for these people. If they are so against masks, they should have the audacity to go bare-faced and claim to be exempt. It’s not like they are required to carry proof
Unless inside there's a few people who wear masks outside where I've been. With the exception of a few walking (outside) a short distance between shops.
As such most people I've seen aren't wearing masks, although probably most are still adhering to the law.
I suppose I should have said 'seeing another human face in places where they would normally be seen but currently aren't'.
Wearing outside all the time seems to be becoming more common unfortunately - around here at least. Probably not the majority (yet) though.
It's more complicated than that.
I'm in a sixth category - I'm technically exempt, but wear one wherever possible to avoid the hassle. The only times I've removed one were where I was having quite a bad panic attack and the covering was making it much worse.
I don't believe they work (for reducing infections - they may reduce viral load), and find the prospect of a masked society chilling.
I think there are quite a lot of people in similar situations - and if there were fewer people in category 3 or 4 (who mean many people think exemptions are nonsense and thosr who claim them are chancers), perhaps we'd feel a bit more comfortable claiming to be exempt.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This is something which seems to be very geographically based. It's probably a majority in Oxford who wear them outside now, but in smaller towns it's almost unknown, especially heading into Gloucestershire or Wiltshire.
This is very similar to my own position and views. My exemption isn't due to panic attacks, but aside from that it's exactly my position, although I'd go further than not believing they work, I think they are counter-productive:
- Disgusting behaviours like putting them on tables before reuse as described above
- Constant fiddling with them putting germs onto fingers to be spread all over the place
- They mean people forget about distancing (which DOES actually work!)
My exemption isn't due to panic attacks either - I've just found that face coverings make them much worse unfortunately.
Re the rest of your point, I agree. I actually think masks are probably the best tool we have for herd immunity - because they probably increase the number of infections but reduce their severity (since they seem to lower viral load)!
There doesn't seem to actually be any evidence of that - it looks supiciously like a new "justification" for them as a result of the original justification (reducing infections) seemingly having no impact at all (the graph of infection levels before and after mask mandation shows nothing at all).
Intuitively, the viral load argument doesn't seem to make sense.
Sure, it makes a bit of sense for the first breath/sneeze/cough after you put the mask on for the first time. But what happens after that? The virus 'caught' by the mask has to go somewhere. Seems it will just shoot out in subsequent breaths/sneezes/coughs - and as no longer 'contained' in a relatively heavy droplet which will have since evaporated on contact with the skin, will probably go further or faster.
Or there is this thread I linked to earlier in the week.
https://twitter.com/Kevin_McKernan/status/1320032362550464516
Sure, it makes a bit of sense for the first breath/sneeze/cough after you put the mask on for the first time. But what happens after that? The virus 'caught' by the mask has to go somewhere. Seems it will just shoot out in subsequent breaths/sneezes/coughs - and as no longer 'contained' in a relatively heavy droplet which will have since evaporated on contact with the skin, will probably go further or faster.
Or there is this thread I linked to earlier in the week.
https://twitter.com/Kevin_McKernan/status/1320032362550464516
Actually it makes no sense at all. There's a video on the interweb of someone taking a puff from a vaper, putting a mask on and then exhaling. All of the vapour just blasts out around the unsealed edges of the mask. Entirely what I'd expect actually - if the edges aren't properly sealed then the air will just take the easiest route, which is to bypass the mask completely.
It's the same with industrial filtration with which I am very familiar. You only need a relatively tiny gap, perhaps 1% or 2% of the filter area and you might as well not have a filter - this is especially true for filters which are filtering down to very small sizes or a few microns or less.
VauxhallandI
Established Member
After approx two weeks and no response from the council I chased them up today.
To summarise the Environmental Health department didn't have a clue about the law, I had to puppy walk them to it and they kept refusing to actually red and kept parroting what they wanted to say. Its amazing how people can half read a sentence.
I have now sent them to talk to their Legal department who might be able to interpret the clauses for them.
It begs the question what are they up to in the biggest event of the globe since I was born if its not knowing what the law is on the pandemic.
I walked past a TfL face covering enforcement operation at Stratford and overheard a snippet of the conversation from someone who had been stopped:
It made me deeply uncomfortable to hear police asking for the details of and belittling someone’s possible disability.
It made me deeply uncomfortable to hear police asking for the details of and belittling someone’s possible disability.
This is deeply concerning from a PCSO.
- Status