UK face coverings discussion

[35B]

As has been repeatedly pointed out, the norm is for those proposing that something works to be required to provide reasonable evidence - not for others to "prove" that it doesn't work.

Although proving a negative is likely to prove impossible, the evidence does very strongly suggest that masks have no effect on transmission.

And you do it again. You conflate an argument over whether the then available data supported the introduction of masks with proving that they haven't have an effect, then make an assertion without adducing evidence in support.

 

[DB]

And you do it again. You conflate an argument over whether the then available data supported the introduction of masks with proving that they haven't have an effect, then make an assertion without adducing evidence in support.

What are you asking for? Evidence of what?

There was no evidence that they worked before they were introduced - other countries had already tried it, with no sign of any effect. And the same happened here when they were introduced - no discernable effect.

 

[johnnychips]

I was in Spain on July 19th, virtually the day they introduced the law wearing masks almost everywhere excepting beaches, smoking, eating and drinking. There didn’t seem to be any exemptions and police picked you up - to be very fair in a nice way - if you weren’t wearing one and told you to wear it. I know correlation does not equal causation but, have a look at Spain’s figures to see how well this strategy suppressed the virus.

 

[The Ham]

I was in Spain on July 19th, virtually the day they introduced the law wearing masks almost everywhere excepting beaches, smoking, eating and drinking. There didn’t seem to be any exemptions and police picked you up - to be very fair in a nice way - if you weren’t wearing one and told you to wear it. I know correlation does not equal causation but, have a look at Spain’s figures to see how well this strategy suppressed the virus.

The problem with such tales is that we don't know how it would have panned out without masks, as it could have been a bit worse.

We also don't know how well people were adhering to the other rules which are much better at suppressing the virus. As if keeping your distance isn't being observed then masks would gain you little, conversely it's likely that if you spend a little bit longer than you should or are a little bit closer than a mask is likely to give you a little bit of a better chance of not getting it.

As if you're at 1.5m rather than 2m wearing a mask is likely to mean that less breath gets spread between the two than would otherwise be the case (there is evidence that signing/shouting is more effective at spreading the virus than talking as you project your voice you project air further and in larger volumes, therefore anything which results in the reverse of that is likely to contain the range of your air and the amount of virus in the air near others).

Whilst wearing a mask when exhaling a lung full of vape smoke dose show leakage around the edges of masks it would be interesting to know if that smoke then has the range that it would otherwise have. As I've said before try blowing a candle out whilst wearing a mask and I'd guess that it's much harder than when you're not wearing a mask as you wouldn't be able to get the force behind it.

Now blowing a candle out is a distinct thing and few should be doing something similar when facing others, however coughing or sneezing could be as bad if not worse. Now whilst coughing or sneezing into a tissue would be better that's not always possible (for instance something irritates your nose causing you to sneeze) and catching it in the crock of your elbow isn't going to cover your mouth and nose as well as a mask (obviously best practice would be to replace said mask as soon as possible).

I'd go as far as suggesting that whilst sneezing isn't a Covid-19 symptom that many locations would advise that those who are unwell (so have sneezing as a symptom, rather than a response to their environment) should avoid going there. For example many work places advise not going into work if your are unwell at all (whilst that doesn't necessarily apply to going shopping, especially for getting food, it should limit the movements and settings which people who are sneezing are in - such as not being on a train on the way to work).

Yes, if there's any benefits from mask wearing is likely to be limited, yes there's going to be masks (especially those which are single layers of fabric) which are likely to perform badly when compared to others (however even in the influenza study the level of protection was such that they were 95% sure that there was some protection when the person was wearing an N95 mask and the patients weren't - which is another variable - in a high viral load area for a long time), yes wearing a mask is going give you virtually zero protection when in a high virus load area for a long time (such as in a medical setting) and won't protect you from catching it via another route (such as would be the case of flu, where you could get it at home from your children). As such the evidence is unlikely to be strong either way.

However unless there's evidence from a trail where the majority are wearing masks, where there's generally not very high viral loads likely, where the time limit is measured in fractions of hours rather than significant fraction of a 24 hour period, where people aren't needing to be in close proximity to people (as would be the case of healthcare workers treating unmasked patients), then I'll carry on with the assumption that there's likely to be some limited benefit and so will wear a mask when requested to do so but may not be overly happy when having to do so in a setting which feels pointless (such as outside). The problem is that such a trail would be inconclusive as the risk of getting enough viral load to be infected would be very low (and quite the opposite problem with citing articles where the level of protection is low as it's looking at medical settings where staff are probably on long shifts treating patients but could also catch it from other settings).

Having said that mask wearing isn't a silver bullet and will only ever likely to provide limited protection in limited circumstances, however such circumstances are likely to many of the situations that many people find themselves in.

As such it's certainly not going to make any difference if you live in a village/small town of nearly 9,000 with a local level of infection of 50 per 100,000 (so about 4 people within that settlement) and your main contact with others during the week is outside of school for 10 minutes at a time whilst being 2m apart.

Conversely a fabric mask, no matter how good, isn't going to stop you getting Covid-19 when working on a Covid-19 ward for 12 hour shifts since March providing close personal care of patients.

However for many who fall within those outer edges, whilst the evidence may well be weak, as long as they are doing good hands washing, mostly keeping more than 2m from others, limiting the total number of people that they meet, have a half decent mark which they change frequently, etc. then wearing a mask at worst will have no detrimental impact on their likelihood of catching Covid-19 and may give them just enough of an edge to stop then from getting it or spreading it when they otherwise could when there was a minor slip up in their or others adhering to the rest of the good practice.

The problem is that those very Pro mark wearing tend to think that it's going to protect them more than it is, whist some who are anti are probably those for whom they have a reason why they find it hard to wear a mask and have been upset by those who are very Pro getting on their high horse about enforcement and/or overstating the level of potential protection.

The problem with such threads as this is that there tend to be few from the middle of the debate (and many of those who look in from that position leave fairly quickly) whilst those from either end have their pet evidence which reinforces their starting point and as such the thread goes around in circles.

 

[trebor79]

Whilst wearing a mask when exhaling a lung full of vape smoke dose show leakage around the edges of masks it would be interesting to know if that smoke then has the range that it would otherwise have. As I've said before try blowing a candle out whilst wearing a mask and I'd guess that it's much harder than when you're not wearing a mask as you wouldn't be able to get the force behind it.

All the candle example demonstrates, as does the vape smoke, is that indeed most of your exhaled breath is leaking around the sides, not going through the fabric. It's not possible for the fabric to magically slow down the flow unless either it's also slowing the flow from your lungs, or a large proportion is leaking out from the sides. As the mask doesn't prevent you from exhaling normally, we can conclude that indeed most of your breath is leaking around the sides. Which is what the vape smoke shows too.

 

[The Ham]

All the candle example demonstrates, as does the vape smoke, is that indeed most of your exhaled breath is leaking around the sides, not going through the fabric. It's not possible for the fabric to magically slow down the flow unless either it's also slowing the flow from your lungs, or a large proportion is leaking out from the sides. As the mask doesn't prevent you from exhaling normally, we can conclude that indeed most of your breath is leaking around the sides. Which is what the vape smoke shows too.

That's not what I'm saying, I get that you are still going to breath in/out as much, what I'm saying is that it's likely to not travel as far as you aren't able to view it as hard and therefore is more likely to stay closer to you than would be the case of you weren't wearing a mask. This is potentially likely to mean that the virus is more likely to fall to the ground or stay on you or your clothes (assuming you have it) than would be the case if the flow from your mouth and nose was unobstructed.

That's likely to have some impact on the risk of infection (as singing provides an increased risk)

 

[Richard Scott]

That's not what I'm saying, I get that you are still going to breath in/out as much, what I'm saying is that it's likely to not travel as far as you aren't able to view it as hard and therefore is more likely to stay closer to you than would be the case of you weren't wearing a mask. This is potentially likely to mean that the virus is more likely to fall to the ground or stay on you or your clothes (assuming you have it) than would be the case if the flow from your mouth and nose was unobstructed.

That's likely to have some impact on the risk of infection (as singing provides an increased risk)

Unlikely as has less area to escape so pressure will be higher in those areas meaning exit velocity is actually increased in the parts where exhaled breath is leaving.

 

[Yew]

A "nonsensical law" is your (and certainly others on here) opinion, but don't assume that it applies to everybody, - clearly it doesn't.

It's not an opinion, it's the only logical view that can be made in light of the available evidence.

 

[43066]

Reasonable people will differ as to whether that data was present at the time the policy was introduced; no sensible person would argue that the case for is absolutely open and shut.

If the case for them “isn’t absolutely open and shut” it certainly shouldn’t have been made mandatory to wear them.

My challenge is to those who use those graphs to "prove" that interventions have not worked - masks and others. The "proof" offered is no such thing, but an arbitrary and circular assertion that because the graph followed the ultimate curve, the intervention was ineffective.

So by that argument we could mandate absolutely anything - standing on one leg for five minutes before leaving the house, carrying cloves of garlic in your pockets etc. There’s no evidence any of them will work, but if we introduce them and cases continue to rise, you’ll argue that that isn’t evidence of them *not* working, because we will never know how much cases may have risen by if we didn’t adopt them?!

As cases continue to rise despite the majority wearing masks where required, the explanation from the pro mask lobby is only ever that “it’s down to selfish non mask wearers” or “we need to wear masks in more settings”. So, in other words, once any preventative measure is suggested and introduced, it can never be removed!

In terms of other strong anecdotal evidence that masks haven’t worked, well, when they were introduced, we were assured they would enable us to get back to normality. Very clearly that hasn’t happened as we are about to head into another lockdown!

Exactly the same thing has happened in parts of Europe where masks have been mandatory in virtually all outdoor settings.

I’d suggest it’s now blindingly obvious that they either don’t work at all, or that any benefit is so small (or offset by a mask-resultant lack of distancing etc.) as to make no real difference. Either way, we might as well simply not bother.

 

[initiation]

As I've said before try blowing a candle out whilst wearing a mask and I'd guess that it's much harder than when you're not wearing a mask as you wouldn't be able to get the force behind it

Have you tried speaking or singing without a mask on into the same candle? When doing either, you are not projecting huge volumes of air forward.

 

[Yew]

Have you tried speaking or singing without a mask on into the same candle? When doing either, you are not projecting huge volumes of air forward.

How is that important?

 

[initiation]

How is that important?

The poster was using the example of a candle to "show" that masking up slows the air flow down making it difficult to blow out a candle. Implying that the mask was having a significant effect.

My comment was that in normal speach, without the mask, you are not producing a huge airflow as the same candle will also likely stay alight. In fact some singers use this method to help train their breathing! So the point the poster made around the reduced airflow or directing it out the side of the mask doesn't stand up.

 

[Huntergreed]

On Scotrail, I’ve noticed conductors have started periodically walking up and down the train and asking anyone without a mask to put one on.

 

[Richard Scott]

The poster was using the example of a candle to "show" that masking up slows the air flow down making it difficult to blow out a candle. Implying that the mask was having a significant effect.

My comment was that in normal speach, without the mask, you are not producing a huge airflow as the same candle will also likely stay alight. In fact some singers use this method to help train their breathing! So the point the poster made around the reduced airflow or directing it out the side of the mask doesn't stand up.

Agree the airflow under normal conditions is very small, the speed at which you exhale in quite low, just look at vapour when you exhale in the cold, even people singing it is still low (can see that if get a choir outside in cold weather) it really is a nonsense to say masks make any difference here and to stop choirs performing etc.

 

[Jaden_emerald]

Good on you, keep us posted please

Got the following from Stagecoach:

Good Afternoon,

Thank you very much for providing this information for me.

I'm really sorry to hear of the issue that you experienced with the 143 bus driver on the 24th of October, this is certainly something that would need to be investigated.

We would expect all of our drivers to have a full understanding of the current government guidance regarding the wearing of face coverings on the bus so I can only apologise if this was not the case on this occasion. The driver would be expected to politely ask customers boarding the bus to wear a face covering if they are able to do so, however we recognise that this is not possible for all of our customers. Whilst we do offer exemption cards to show to the driver, this is not necessary to travel on the bus.

I would like to assure you that this has been reported to the depot management team who will conduct a full investigation and consult with the driver concerned. The management team can then take any necessary action, in line with our internal disciplinary procedures, including providing further training if necessary.

 

[The Ham]

Unlikely as has less area to escape so pressure will be higher in those areas meaning exit velocity is actually increased in the parts where exhaled breath is leaving.

In which case blowing a candle out would be easier.

However most masks act as a baffle and not all the air will need to exit the mask area before the next breath is taken.

 

[trebor79]

In which case blowing a candle out would be easier.

No, because it's leaking out the sides.

This is getting a bit silly.

 

[35B]

No, because it's leaking out the sides.

This is getting a bit silly.

Indeed it is. I've had cause to try the candle test (because I needed to blow a candle out), and my experience was that the face covering I was wearing restricted my ability to blow sharply enough to extinguish the candle, but did not divert the air sideways to a significant extent. In other words, it reduced the distance my breath travelled.

 

[Richard Scott]

In which case blowing a candle out would be easier.

However most masks act as a baffle and not all the air will need to exit the mask area before the next breath is taken.

No as it's only going out of the sides where the air is exhausting.
If not all of the air is leaving eventually carbon dioxide levels will build up leading to hypoxia so almost all air will need to be exiting the mask.

 

[trebor79]

Indeed it is. I've had cause to try the candle test (because I needed to blow a candle out), and my experience was that the face covering I was wearing restricted my ability to blow sharply enough to extinguish the candle, but did not divert the air sideways to a significant extent. In other words, it reduced the distance my breath travelled.

It can only reduce the distance your breath travels by slowing it down. The only way that this can hold from a fluid mechanics point of view is if some (probably most) of your breath is escaping elsewhere, most likely from the unsealed sides.
It is impossible to reduce the flow without that "extra" air going somewhere. If you have 5 litres per second of air coming out of your lungs, but only 1 litre going straight through the mask, the other 4 litres per second is escaping somewhere. It can't just disappear.

 

[big_rig]

Looks like covid and the need for face coverings has taken the day off in the US, even amongst the most stringent mask promoters Goes to show when push comes to shove there’s always a point at which even the most mask obsessed will give it a rest. A few tweets down from the image of people crowded together and singing/shouting (high risk according to her own made up Covid risk chart) she’s talking about putting masks on 2 year olds.

 

[DustyBin]

The problem with such tales is that we don't know how it would have panned out without masks, as it could have been a bit worse.

We also don't know how well people were adhering to the other rules which are much better at suppressing the virus. As if keeping your distance isn't being observed then masks would gain you little, conversely it's likely that if you spend a little bit longer than you should or are a little bit closer than a mask is likely to give you a little bit of a better chance of not getting it.

As if you're at 1.5m rather than 2m wearing a mask is likely to mean that less breath gets spread between the two than would otherwise be the case (there is evidence that signing/shouting is more effective at spreading the virus than talking as you project your voice you project air further and in larger volumes, therefore anything which results in the reverse of that is likely to contain the range of your air and the amount of virus in the air near others).

Whilst wearing a mask when exhaling a lung full of vape smoke dose show leakage around the edges of masks it would be interesting to know if that smoke then has the range that it would otherwise have. As I've said before try blowing a candle out whilst wearing a mask and I'd guess that it's much harder than when you're not wearing a mask as you wouldn't be able to get the force behind it.

Now blowing a candle out is a distinct thing and few should be doing something similar when facing others, however coughing or sneezing could be as bad if not worse. Now whilst coughing or sneezing into a tissue would be better that's not always possible (for instance something irritates your nose causing you to sneeze) and catching it in the crock of your elbow isn't going to cover your mouth and nose as well as a mask (obviously best practice would be to replace said mask as soon as possible).

I'd go as far as suggesting that whilst sneezing isn't a Covid-19 symptom that many locations would advise that those who are unwell (so have sneezing as a symptom, rather than a response to their environment) should avoid going there. For example many work places advise not going into work if your are unwell at all (whilst that doesn't necessarily apply to going shopping, especially for getting food, it should limit the movements and settings which people who are sneezing are in - such as not being on a train on the way to work).

Yes, if there's any benefits from mask wearing is likely to be limited, yes there's going to be masks (especially those which are single layers of fabric) which are likely to perform badly when compared to others (however even in the influenza study the level of protection was such that they were 95% sure that there was some protection when the person was wearing an N95 mask and the patients weren't - which is another variable - in a high viral load area for a long time), yes wearing a mask is going give you virtually zero protection when in a high virus load area for a long time (such as in a medical setting) and won't protect you from catching it via another route (such as would be the case of flu, where you could get it at home from your children). As such the evidence is unlikely to be strong either way.

However unless there's evidence from a trail where the majority are wearing masks, where there's generally not very high viral loads likely, where the time limit is measured in fractions of hours rather than significant fraction of a 24 hour period, where people aren't needing to be in close proximity to people (as would be the case of healthcare workers treating unmasked patients), then I'll carry on with the assumption that there's likely to be some limited benefit and so will wear a mask when requested to do so but may not be overly happy when having to do so in a setting which feels pointless (such as outside). The problem is that such a trail would be inconclusive as the risk of getting enough viral load to be infected would be very low (and quite the opposite problem with citing articles where the level of protection is low as it's looking at medical settings where staff are probably on long shifts treating patients but could also catch it from other settings).

Having said that mask wearing isn't a silver bullet and will only ever likely to provide limited protection in limited circumstances, however such circumstances are likely to many of the situations that many people find themselves in.

As such it's certainly not going to make any difference if you live in a village/small town of nearly 9,000 with a local level of infection of 50 per 100,000 (so about 4 people within that settlement) and your main contact with others during the week is outside of school for 10 minutes at a time whilst being 2m apart.

Conversely a fabric mask, no matter how good, isn't going to stop you getting Covid-19 when working on a Covid-19 ward for 12 hour shifts since March providing close personal care of patients.

However for many who fall within those outer edges, whilst the evidence may well be weak, as long as they are doing good hands washing, mostly keeping more than 2m from others, limiting the total number of people that they meet, have a half decent mark which they change frequently, etc. then wearing a mask at worst will have no detrimental impact on their likelihood of catching Covid-19 and may give them just enough of an edge to stop then from getting it or spreading it when they otherwise could when there was a minor slip up in their or others adhering to the rest of the good practice.

The problem is that those very Pro mark wearing tend to think that it's going to protect them more than it is, whist some who are anti are probably those for whom they have a reason why they find it hard to wear a mask and have been upset by those who are very Pro getting on their high horse about enforcement and/or overstating the level of potential protection.

The problem with such threads as this is that there tend to be few from the middle of the debate (and many of those who look in from that position leave fairly quickly) whilst those from either end have their pet evidence which reinforces their starting point and as such the thread goes around in circles.

That’s a quite a good post actually, although I don’t agree with everything you say.

Taking a step back, I have always said that in theory masks could be effective. Their effectiveness is dependant on three things:

1. They are used correctly. That means changing them regularly, washing properly if reusable, donning and doffing correctly etc.

2. They are used in conjunction with other measures such as social distancing when possible, good hand hygiene etc.

3. Finally, and this is absolutely critical, they are of an effective type. No scarves, no fortnight old paper disposables, no leopard print fabric and certainly no valves(!).

The problem is, in reality I’ve seen very little evidence of any of the above.

I’ll hold my hands up here, I become genuinely annoyed by people such as Trisha Greenhalgh, but I do so because she doesn’t address these key points, yet her research is presented as conclusive by those who are pro-mask. This is the detachment from reality I cite again and again.

If you’re going to mandate something as unpopular as mask wearing, at least try and maximise the benefit from it by making sure it’s done properly. Or, is there a quiet acceptance that it’s simply impossible in a community setting?

 

[bramling]

That’s a quite a good post actually, although I don’t agree with everything you say.

Taking a step back, I have always said that in theory masks could be effective. Their effectiveness is dependant on three things:

1. They are used correctly. That means changing them regularly, washing properly if reusable, donning and doffing correctly etc.

2. They are used in conjunction with other measures such as social distancing when possible, good hand hygiene etc.

3. Finally, and this is absolutely critical, they are of an effective type. No scarves, no fortnight old paper disposables, no leopard print fabric and certainly no valves(!).

The problem is, in reality I’ve seen very little evidence of any of the above.

I’ll hold my hands up here, I become genuinely annoyed by people such as Trisha Greenhalgh, but I do so because she doesn’t address these key points, yet her research is presented as conclusive by those who are pro-mask. This is the detachment from reality I cite again and again.

If you’re going to mandate something as unpopular as mask wearing, at least try and maximise the benefit from it by making sure it’s done properly. Or, is there a quiet acceptance that it’s simply impossible in a community setting?

This is what makes me wild with some of the hardcore mask obsessives.

In reality it’s pretty much impossible to use a mask properly in the rough and tumble of everyday life, as opposed to the controlled environment of surgical settings for which they’re actually intended. Which is of course exactly the point made by Jenny Harries earlier in the year.

I feel we are being asked to do something which is essentially impossible, just to satisfy a few obsessives’ desire to tick a box, as opposed to actually achieving anything useful. The amount of trouble this is all causing is completely disproportionate to any tiny benefit they may bring, especially when we consider that mask wearing tends to result in less physical distancing.

 

[43066]

I feel we are being asked to do something which is essentially impossible, just to satisfy a few obsessives’ desire to tick a box, as opposed to actually achieving anything useful. The amount of trouble this is all causing is completely disproportionate to any tiny benefit they may bring, especially when we consider that mask wearing tends to result in less physical distancing.

It’s becoming clear that reason and logic simply don’t come into it. Whenever anyone points out that masks demonstrably haven’t achieved what we were told they would, the response is obfuscation and moving the goalposts.

Perhaps there’s a psychological aspect to this. Masks provide a physical barrier to the outside world which comforts those who are irrationally terrified of the virus. These people simply can’t cope with the fact that there’s no evidence that masks make any difference, so they flatly deny it.

That’s up to them, of course, but it becomes very worrying when laws are made on this basis and we have medical professionals who are supporting unproven pseudoscience.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

It’s becoming clear that reason and logic simply don’t come into it. Whenever anyone points out that masks demonstrably haven’t achieved what we were told they would, the response is obfuscation and moving the goalposts.

Perhaps there’s a psychological aspect to this. Masks provide a physical barrier to the outside world which comforts those who are irrationally terrified of the virus. These people simply can’t cope with the fact that there’s no evidence that masks make any difference, so they flatly deny it.

That’s up to them, of course, but it becomes very worrying when laws are made on this basis and we have medical professionals who are supporting unproven pseudoscience.

Masks serve as a visible reminder that there is 'a national emergency' on and that people may/should/must adjust their behaviour accordingly. Personally I've become invincible in my Wilko re-usable mask and nip into any small gap between shoppers in the supermarket.

For the horrified, I would do that anyway without masks, as the risk is miniscule. More dangerous crossing the road outside with the moron drivers in cars without indicators fitted etc.

 

[DustyBin]

It’s becoming clear that reason and logic simply don’t come into it. Whenever anyone points out that masks demonstrably haven’t achieved what we were told they would, the response is obfuscation and moving the goalposts.

Perhaps there’s a psychological aspect to this. Masks provide a physical barrier to the outside world which comforts those who are irrationally terrified of the virus. These people simply can’t cope with the fact that there’s no evidence that masks make any difference, so they flatly deny it.

That’s up to them, of course, but it becomes very worrying when laws are made on this basis and we have medical professionals who are supporting unproven pseudoscience.

Masks serve as a visible reminder that there is 'a national emergency' on and that people may/should/must adjust their behaviour accordingly. Personally I've become invincible in my Wilko re-usable mask and nip into any small gap between shoppers in the supermarket.

For the horrified, I would do that anyway without masks, as the risk is miniscule. More dangerous crossing the road outside with the moron drivers in cars without indicators fitted etc.

Very good points made by both!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Police apology over Sainsbury's face mask exemption demand

From the BBC News Website, Sunday 8 November 2020. Quite an appropriate day to publish this, whilst thinking of those who fought for our freedoms etc.

Police have apologised after forcing a man to leave a supermarket because he could not prove he was exempt from wearing a face mask.
The incident is believed to have occurred at a Sainsbury's store in Oldbury last month.
In a video posted on social media, several officers can be seen confronting the man, who said he was exempt due to a medical condition.
West Midlands Police said the officers were wrong to demand proof of this.
In the mobile phone footage, which has attracted thousands of comments, one officer told the man: "If you can't provide proof... you will be forcibly removed from the store."
This was "incorrect" and the officers had "misinterpreted the guidance", the force added.
Face masks became mandatory in shops in England in July, but there are exemptions for those with a physical or mental illness or disability.
'Distress and upset'
The government regulations state that people "do not routinely need to show any written evidence of this" and "do not need show an exemption card", although a note can be downloaded from its website.
Some disability groups have called on the government to introduce a recognised exemption badge because of the abuse some have faced at the hands of other shoppers.
West Midlands Police said the officers had been spoken to regarding their understanding of the current legislation.
"We sincerely apologise for any distress and upset we have caused to the man and his wife," it said.
"These are unprecedented times and we're all adapting to the new legislation and guidance which has changed many times during the pandemic."

Cut it, paste it, print it, carry a copy around. Flypost it next to every poster saying otherwise. Read it out to every train guard abusing train PA to say anything otherwise etc.

 

[Class800]

Not just an apology, the police need to bring assault and disability discrimination charges against their own officers here - but doubt they will be brave enough

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Not just an apology, the police need to bring assault and disability discrimination charges against their own officers here - but doubt they will be brave enough

I think a suitable remedy would be to instruct the police (officers in question and the force itself) to actively promote the 'proof is not necessary' message through all their usual communications channels and interactions with the community. Cressida Dick at the Met could be the figurehead of the campaign (she who essentially encouraged public shaming of none wearers). But that would undermine the central message of 'do what you're told, not what the law actually says'.

 

[trainophile]

I think a suitable remedy would be to instruct the police (officers in question and the force itself) to actively promote the 'proof is not necessary' message through all their usual communications channels and interactions with the community. Cressida Dick at the Met could be the figurehead of the campaign (she who essentially encouraged public shaming of none wearers). But that would undermine the central message of 'do what you're told, not what the law actually says'.

Surely this would just be an open invitation for everyone and his dog to declare themselves exempt. Not that I have a problem with that, but it will muddy the waters even more than they are now.