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!
I have not used any public transport since March 2020 ( actually December 2019 but not relevant ) and will not unless absolutely essential e.g. car off the road until the requirement for face coverings/masks/nappies is ended.
Further without also ending social distancing and hence the need to either book ahead or risk finding venues and hospitality are at the limit of reduced capacity plus ending the requirement of table service at pubs, cafes etc so often the need for a phone app there still will be no incentive to travel for a day out.
Directly OT but unless services return to a timetable close to summer 2019 some options will not available ( XC I hope you are reading this with currently the requirement for reservations and Reading - Bournemouth cut to every two hours plus the services/times I use are included in those that have been removed ).
The masks which I've bought, the cheap blue paper things, have some interesting wording on the packaging, it says 'Non Medical' and 'Not for surgical use'. Now that to me suggests they are virtually useless but they tick a box, put one on and you're ok to board a train, go in a shop etc, however useless they may be.
It got me thinking though, I reckon it would have been impossible to have lockdowns on their own, they simply wouldn't have worked, there had to be something else to accompany them, some way of engaging the public, some way of getting them involved, making them think they were doing their bit and helping to fight the battle. That's why the Hands-Face-Space nonsense was conjured up and it's certainly been a revelation of how gullible a vast number of people are.
The most annoying thing about the month long extension to the June 21 'Freedom Day' is that to a very large extent, the measures exist now in name only, recently I've been in the Bullring Shopping Centre in Birmingham and the Arndale Centre in Manchester and it was clear that mask wearing is declining rapidly, in fact on one particularly hot day, even the staff in a large well known department store weren't wearing masks.
To all intents and purposes, distancing, mask wearing and hand sanitising is over and I'm surprised that politicians and scientific advisors are naive and deluded enough to think there is still much compliance - if indeed they ever believed the fatuous rubbish in the first place!
And yet the majority of Randomised Control Trials have found no effectiveness at preventing the spread of respiratory illness. Low quality mechanistic studies should not be relied on when their experimental premise is flawed, and most higher-quality evidence suggests to the contrary. Unlike most of the comentators here, and in the media, I actually have a Ph.D in droplet mass transfer; most of these studies failed to consier alternative suppression (anyone remember 'catch it, kill it, bin it') or where the droplets end up; unless you're right up in the face of them, then the chances are any droplets will fall harmlessly onto their clothing. Seriously, when was the last time someone ever accidentally spat in your mouth or eyes.
Thank you for this. The study you also mentioned (DANMASK-19) does indeed appear to constitute high quality evidence that masking of the type the general public is being asked to undertake has no discernible benefit!
You are far better qualified than most to understand the mechanics of exactly *why* masks don’t work, although I’d suggest an application of common sense should lead those less qualified to exactly the same conclusion! Months ago somebody on here produced graphs of infection rates in various countries and pointed out that it was impossible to tell when masks were introduced by looking at those graphs.
Given that it took over 100 years to eliminate smallpox, and that for most people; this is a mild respiratory illness, it seems like the gains will be at best marginal. If you are wanting to remove risk entirely, you may as well give up now, we always live with risk. If you want to stay boarded up in your house, then I would remind you that household accidents kill over 100,000 Americans every year.
Of course, as has become clear, masks aren’t really about reducing risk at all. They’re simultaneously a comfort blanket for the terrified, a method of virtue signalling for the self righteous and, increasingly, a political football for dim witted, wet politicians (Khan being a prime example).
It’s extraordinary that there are clearly people who are simultaneously skeptical about vaccine efficacy (which is well proven beyond any doubt), yet apparently believe implicitly whatever the government tells them about masks, even when it’s based on pseudoscience.
The government of this country did. My argument is that while the government says you should wear a face covering, people should respect that. The government has said that it will ‘follow the science’ (whatever that actually means). There may well now be more studies that tell us more. If the scientific and medical advice is that people no longer need to wear face coverings, that fine.
Are you following the mask advice because you think it’s right to do what the government tells you to do, or because you think the government is asking you to do what the science suggests, and you agree with them?
What happens if the government continues to ask you to something which has no scientific justification?
The amount of messages I see here about only wearing the mask because you have to but you don't actually believe in it. Surely the time has come to grow some balls and actually stand up against this assault on personal freedom. You don't even have to break the law in doing so, just claim an exemption which are sufficiently vague that anyone can legally do so.
People laid down their lives to stop us becoming a country like this where officials boss us about in everyday/normal activities but so many people just can't handle the thought of being different or not complying. Do what you think is right, not what some busy-body says. Your maskless face could send a message to others who feel the same and perhaps there might be a way out of this madness.
In case it wasn't obvious, I would be far more likely to use public transport if things went back to February 2020 tomorrow. It still wouldn't change the endless announcements, hospital ambience and terrible seats that now adorn a large proportion of long distance rolling stock however. All of which was already deterring me from using public transport long before Covid.
Is not wearing a mask ‘because you don’t believe in it’ actually legal? Perhaps either yourself or @yorkie would be kind enough to clarify? That’s certainly not my reading of things, but as always, I’m happy to be corrected
What do you specifically mean by ‘just claim an exemption’? Do you believe that people who are not exempt should claim to be so? That’s the way that I read your post, but again, I’m happy for you to clarify.
For what it’s worth, I’m very doubtful that masks do any good, I dislike wearing one, I have stood up for someone who is exempt and would do so again if needed.
I’m simply trying to clarify if what’s written in your post is consistent with the law.
Is not wearing a mask ‘because you don’t believe in it’ actually legal? Perhaps either yourself or @yorkie would be kind enough to clarify? That’s certainly not my reading of things, but as always, I’m happy to be corrected
What do you specifically mean by ‘just claim an exemption’? Do you believe that people who are not exempt should claim to be so? That’s the way that I read your post, but again, I’m happy for you to clarify.
For what it’s worth, I’m very doubtful that masks do any good, I dislike wearing one, I have stood up for someone who is exempt and would do so again if needed.
I’m simply trying to clarify if what’s written in your post is consistent with the law.
Is not wearing a mask ‘because you don’t believe in it’ actually legal? Perhaps either yourself or @yorkie would be kind enough to clarify? That’s certainly not my reading of things, but as always, I’m happy to be corrected
What do you specifically mean by ‘just claim an exemption’? Do you believe that people who are not exempt should claim to be so? That’s the way that I read your post, but again, I’m happy for you to clarify.
For what it’s worth, I’m very doubtful that masks do any good, I dislike wearing one, I have stood up for someone who is exempt and would do so again if needed.
I’m simply trying to clarify if what’s written in your post is consistent with the law.
If someone is so distressed by wearing a mask that they would avoid using public transport, I'd say they have a reasonable excuse not to wear one under the regulations!
If someone is so distressed by wearing a mask that they would avoid using public transport, I'd say they have a reasonable excuse not to wear one under the regulations!
If someone is so distressed by wearing a mask that they would avoid using public transport, I'd say they have a reasonable excuse not to wear one under the regulations!
I fully support anyone with a legal exemption and as I mentioned in my post I’ve actually stood up for them and this was against a very aggressive member of railway staff.
I dislike wearing masks but they don’t cause me distress and hence I’m not exempt.
children under the age of 11 (Public Health England does not recommend face coverings for children under the age of 3 for health and safety reasons)
people who cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering because of a physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability
where putting on, wearing or removing a face covering will cause you severe distress
if you are speaking to or providing assistance to someone who relies on lip reading, clear sound or facial expressions to communicate
to avoid harm or injury, or the risk of harm or injury, to yourself or others ‒ including if it would negatively impact on your ability to exercise or participate in a strenuous activity
police officers and other emergency workers, given that this may interfere with their ability to serve the public
However I've known several people withdraw from events because they don't feel comfortable being exempt; this may be due to feelings of guilt, or worries over being challenged, or other reasons.
I'm not exaggerating when I say some transport operators will literally refuse to carry exempt passengers and will make angry threats against people who stand up for people with conditions, disabilities etc. Unless someone actually takes a case to court, such behaviour will continue. This further undermines the confidence of people who are exempt, which can result in people feeling excluded from society.
I know of people who find wearing face coverings cause distress but many of them feel that nor wearing one causes anxiety, which I believe is due to a lack of understanding in the part of some people regarding mental health and wellbeing, and an assumption that only obvious physical disabilities quality for exemption.
I've been the victim of a distressing theft due to a thief being able to cover their face without suspicion. I cannot get back what I lost and I cannot easily forgive the authoritarians for this. I also know I'm not alone and brazen crime will continue due to the normalisation of hiding faces.
I'm yet to hear an authoritarian supporter of the mandate properly address these issues. They tend to make things worse by trivialising distress and anxieties. But that's not surprising as authoritarians generally seem to lack empathy.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I don't understand why there should be any onus on me to clarify?
Nevertheless I have provided a non exhaustive list of exemptions above.
If a person purely didn't believe in the effectiveness of masks but was not in any way distressed, anxious to do so, then there is no cause for exemption on that basis.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'm confident there will be a combination of two things occuring if masks don't get dropped in four weeks:
1) lower compliance / people simply not wearing them (mass civil disobedience); and
2) people who are covered by exemptions feeling the confidence and/or perhaps motivation/inclination to travel without wearing a face covering.
However it was a prediction rather than a promotion! Apologies if I didn't make that clear; it was posted in response to a genuine concern regarding what I personally deem to be a very unlikely outcome ("masks becoming permanent on public transport")
Others are welcome to have differing predictions and it will be interesting to look back in a few weeks time.
I'll be dumping them as soon as my employer allows at work (I'm a train conductor) more due to their impact on some of my passengers, the hard of hearing etc than in having any opinion on their effectiveness. I work up to 10 hour shifts, some of which have pretty minimal breaks and they don't really bother me. I wear disposable ones there because they're easier to talk coherently and make announcements through.
Outside of work I'll keep hold of the "sports material" ones I have that are probably no use at all despite being perfectly legal because I find them far more comfortable than a scarf on a cold winter morning.
As for sharing space, I was on a train which rapidly filled with students the other day. As I was occupying a bay of 4 with a table to myself I was quite happy to share with two young people who politely asked if they could sit down, no one took the seat right next to me though.
I don't understand why there should be any onus on me to clarify?
Nevertheless I have provided a non exhaustive list of exemptions above.
If a person purely didn't believe in the effectiveness of masks but was not in any way distressed, anxious to do so, then there is no cause for exemption on that basis.F
I’m very sorry to hear of the theft that you have suffered and also about your friend who wasn’t able to participate in the trip, both situations are awful.
Just to be completely clear, I absolutely support anyone with an exemption not wearing a mask. I also don’t believe that it is anyone else’s business as to why someone is exempt, it’s their business alone.
I have asked the original poster @richa2002 to clarify their position and hope that they will do so, especially in the light of your post confirming that ‘not believing in masks’ does not constitute a legal basis for not wearing one.
I tagged you into the post since I was certain that you had previously provided information on this topic.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think we have established now that not wearing a mask because you don’t believe in them isn’t an exemption.
I wonder if in weeks to come we really will see people burning their masks in the street?
I sincerely hope that it won’t be necessary and that all mask requirements are dropped. I think there’s a fair chance of that, at least until the next round of restrictions in the Autumn…
I should hope that there won't be too much pressure on the NHS this winter, even for the unfortunate reason that a lot of the people with long term health problems have died during this pandemic. No pressure on the NHS should mean no restrictions (I hope!)
As an aside, I now go maskless at work and did so immediately that law changed to guidance.
I did get called to a meeting to explain myself, where there was a significant non-meeting of minds, which ended with me being told there would be a further meeting once they had ‘checked with HR’.
Three weeks on I’m still waiting for the follow-up and in that time a number of colleagues have joined me…
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I should hope that there won't be too much pressure on the NHS this winter, even for the unfortunate reason that a lot of the people with long term health problems have died during this pandemic. No pressure on the NHS should mean no restrictions (I hope!)
As an aside, I now go maskless at work and did so immediately that law changed to guidance.
I did get called to a meeting to explain myself, where there was a significant non-meeting of minds, which ended with me being told there would be a further meeting once they had ‘checked with HR’.
Three weeks on I’m still waiting for the follow-up and in that time a number of colleagues have joined me…
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'd have to agree. I think a small number of people are relying on the 'cause severe distress' exemption in this case, but while I have a lot of sympathy for that position on moral grounds [1], I don't think that stands up legally and I'd be very wary of relying solely on that if you want to remain following the law - it seems pretty clear to me that the intent of this exemption is to cover eg. people who have been physically or sexually abused while having their face covered in some way by the abuser.
'Fortunately' I have other reasons for exemption.
[1] if you feel that you are being required to do something that you believe is totally pointless, an unacceptable imposition by the state on what you must wear, and if you believe that wearing one is therefore signalling your support for something that you really don't support, then that could be considered to cause 'severe distress', at least mentally. I've seen it compared to the government requiring in March 2003 that everyone go around with a sign on their head saying 'I support the Iraq War', which is a slightly flawed analogy but makes the point.
I sincerely hope that it won’t be necessary and that all mask requirements are dropped. I think there’s a fair chance of that, at least until the next round of restrictions in the Autumn…
I note that in Israel, all of three weeks or so since they dropped their mask mandates, they're now discussing bringing them back Though there is a recent change of government involved there, which may be related.
Time soon to start agrgressively lecturing those pro mask persisters in none reusable masks for destroying the environment after then. No conscience whatsovere. Cos those will be the ones now going off on one every time they see a disabled child who can't wear one. Revenge is a 50, best cold started.
I've got a journey booked from Edinburgh to Carlisle in August. If this proposal happens, it seems to me that for the last few minutes of my journey I could not have to wear a face covering - purely because I happened to have crossed the border. Surely even the most pro-maskers can see there is no justifiable scientific reasoning behind that? It just shows yet another stupidity and inconsistency in all of these covid regulations.
If I took the train to Edinburgh I would have to change my face covering part way through. I prefer a face shield to a cloth covering, and these are legal* in England but not in Scotland.
*When I say legal I am referring to laws and not to guidance
So all legal restrictions will go on 19t July which is good.....but they'll be back in the autumn I'm pretty sure of that.
I'm also going to Edinburgh in the first week of August, at the moment it seems the wee dictator of Scotland will keep restrictions going there past the first week of August
George Eustice, the environment minister, says the plan is for facemasks to be optional post July 19 - but he won't be wearing one 'I have to be honest, once I'm told that it's safe not not to, I want to get back to normal. I think a lot of people will want to shed those masks'
Is not wearing a mask ‘because you don’t believe in it’ actually legal? Perhaps either yourself or @yorkie would be kind enough to clarify? That’s certainly not my reading of things, but as always, I’m happy to be corrected
What do you specifically mean by ‘just claim an exemption’? Do you believe that people who are not exempt should claim to be so? That’s the way that I read your post, but again, I’m happy for you to clarify.
For what it’s worth, I’m very doubtful that masks do any good, I dislike wearing one, I have stood up for someone who is exempt and would do so again if needed.
I’m simply trying to clarify if what’s written in your post is consistent with the law.
Though there is a recent change of government involved there, which may be related.
