Remaining Effects of Covid

[gswindale]

Have to say that Friday is one of my preferred days for going into the office - less traffic on the road and less of the noisy people in the office itself!

 

[Blindtraveler]

I think with Fridays it's always been quite well spread out and this is how it feels okay, you get little pockets of busyness at certain times particularly though is who are either working late or getting away early for a weekend

Monday's were becoming quieter pre-covid as well so again I don't think we can read too much into this one anymore

In other news, I've just been updating my address details with one of the major supermarkets and they asked me to take a box to say I didn't have covid

 

[Snow1964]

I don't know how much longer the DFT will be able to hush up the fact that even weekday travel patterns certainly in the southeast and I know many other places as well are back to pre-pandemic also, yesterday which was a Tuesday I traveled from Hayes and harlington to Chatham via Ealing Broadway and London canon Street and volumes on all modes including the 12 car crowd buster on the 1744 Dover priory working were more like 2019 than 2021

The Transport Minister gave the following reply to a question in the House today

I think the right hon. Gentleman fundamentally misunderstands. First, HS2 is a railway for the coming decades, not for the next few years. What happened during the pandemic should not affect the case for HS2. Also, he assumes that business travellers are the only people who will use HS2.

It is true that business and commuter traffic is down following the pandemic, but we have seen leisure services rebound very strongly, with passenger numbers higher than they were pre-pandemic.

So happy to admit publicly that leisure passenger numbers higher, but still believes commuter numbers down, which seems odd as Fridays had become quiet before the pandemic

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-07-13/debates/D795888D-7F72-4DC7-B462-C25389A421AA/OralAnswersToQuestions

 

[yorksrob]

But its not numbers its revenue that's the issue! Lots more people travelling on "cheap" tickets will not make up for the full price business meeting tickets that have now been largely lost to Zoom forever.

Given that those season tickets were themselves heavily discounted on a per journey basis, it seems hard to believe that their replacement by leisure journeys can have had that much of an effect on revenue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given that those season tickets were themselves heavily discounted on a per journey basis, it seems hard to believe that their replacement by leisure journeys can have had that much of an effect on revenue.

Seasons yes (it's fairly likely the railway is getting similar income from people doing Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday on Anytime tickets or flexi seasons instead) but not so much things like the £350 Manchester-London Anytimes, which I suspect are sold in very small numbers indeed now but did provide key income before.

 

[yorksrob]

Seasons yes (it's fairly likely the railway is getting similar income from people doing Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday on Anytime tickets or flexi seasons instead) but not so much things like the £350 Manchester-London Anytimes, which I suspect are sold in very small numbers indeed now but did provide key income before.

It's hard to imagine, given the numbers. I'm sure a railway manager with some autonomy could get more money out of those empty, peak time first class carriages.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's hard to imagine, given the numbers. I'm sure a railway manager with some autonomy could get more money out of those empty, peak time first class carriages.

That is the Standard fare! With regard to 1st, the commuter operators are rapidly removing it, and Avanti's Standard Premium is one attempt but with mixed success.

 

[Snow1964]

It's hard to imagine, given the numbers. I'm sure a railway manager with some autonomy could get more money out of those empty, peak time first class carriages.

Yes, ultimately 2 options, either reduce first class, or try and maximise revenue by filling trains running anyway.

If going to provide 100+ seats, then have to decide if want 10 people at £350 (and 90 empty seats) or 80 people at £50 (which is more)

There is definitely something crazy about the way yield thresholds are currently set up, to use a personal example have booked 3 tickets for day trip to London with journeys at peak time later this month, this forums ticket gave a split ticket with first class from Newbury to London because was cheaper, but presumably was no value First tickets from Westbury area to Newbury on same train (does first class really empty out at Newbury, or is it so disjointed it thought it could sell more first class in Wiltshire than the London end so kept the seats free).

So I agree with @yorksrob that if some managers were given more autonomy they could tweak the yield quotas to maximise revenue and bums on seats. I would start with Friday (where hardly anyone has an in person business meeting, so negligible business travel) and treat it like Saturdays for fare yields.

Part of problem is have too many new fares (standard premium, weekend first etc) instead of getting yield thresholds better for existing tickets. All these new tickets just add complications and are only sellable because the prices of other tickets are wrong to fill the seats.

 

[takno]

It's hard to imagine, given the numbers. I'm sure a railway manager with some autonomy could get more money out of those empty, peak time first class carriages.

A competent railway manager already is in most cases - west coast have cut back significantly on first clqss capacity with the standard premium product and east coast are pretty good at selling first into the leisure market, not least by having such terrible seats in standard. There is arguably a bit of a problem that these customers are often paying half what business travellers were previously willing to pay, but there don't seem to be any particular issues getting reasonable loadings.

Yes, ultimately 2 options, either reduce first class, or try and maximise revenue by filling trains running anyway.

If going to provide 100+ seats, then have to decide if want 10 people at £350 (and 90 empty seats) or 70 people at £50

There is definitely something crazy about the way yield thresholds are currently set up, to use a personal example have booked 3 tickets for day trip to London with journeys at peak time later this month, this forums ticket gave a split ticket with first class from Newbury to London because was cheaper, but presumably was no value First tickets from Westbury area to Newbury on same train (does first class really empty out at Newbury, or is it so disjointed it thought it could sell more first class in Wiltshire than the London end so kept the seats free).

So I agree with @yorksrob that if some managers were given more autonomy they could tweak the yield quotas to maximise revenue and bums on seats. I would start with Friday (where hardly anyone has a business meeting, so negligible business travel) and treat it like Saturdays for fare yields

GWR do seem to be not-great at this, although they've been hobbled by the fully dft-specified trains, with the Spartan first class interiors which don't even look as classy as standard on LNER. I'm not sure the dft specified the rather gruesome free snack box though. Not sure why you couldn't get Westbury-newbury on the train, but there's got to be something weird going on because the splitting side should have offered you at least an open first. Have you tried booking it separately to see what's offered on other sites?

 

[Snow1964]

Not sure why you couldn't get Westbury-newbury on the train, but there's got to be something weird going on because the splitting side should have offered you at least an open first. Have you tried booking it separately to see what's offered on other sites?

Sorry perhaps didn't describe it well, actually selected standard class, but first was clearly cheaper for part of the journey, so it found those tickets instead. But the logic of the ticket pricing is it would prefer you to swap seats to first mid journey than utilise same seats for less busy part of the journey. My question was more if can't fill first class on part to London, so are selling it cheap, then why is it priced differently so doesn't occur on the country part of same train where first is usually quiet. Basically why is first class cheaper for part of journey, rather than whole journey or none of journey on same train.

 

[yorksrob]

That is the Standard fare! With regard to 1st, the commuter operators are rapidly removing it, and Avanti's Standard Premium is one attempt but with mixed success.

The WCML was always known for having to walk past rakes of empty first class carriages to get to standard.

It's too early to say what effects these changes have had, given Avanti probably probably hasn't had time to rebuild its reputation yet. Will be interesting to see over the longer term.

Yes, ultimately 2 options, either reduce first class, or try and maximise revenue by filling trains running anyway.

If going to provide 100+ seats, then have to decide if want 10 people at £350 (and 90 empty seats) or 80 people at £50 (which is more)

There is definitely something crazy about the way yield thresholds are currently set up, to use a personal example have booked 3 tickets for day trip to London with journeys at peak time later this month, this forums ticket gave a split ticket with first class from Newbury to London because was cheaper, but presumably was no value First tickets from Westbury area to Newbury on same train (does first class really empty out at Newbury, or is it so disjointed it thought it could sell more first class in Wiltshire than the London end so kept the seats free).

So I agree with @yorksrob that if some managers were given more autonomy they could tweak the yield quotas to maximise revenue and bums on seats. I would start with Friday (where hardly anyone has an in person business meeting, so negligible business travel) and treat it like Saturdays for fare yields.

Part of problem is have too many new fares (standard premium, weekend first etc) instead of getting yield thresholds better for existing tickets. All these new tickets just add complications and are only sellable because the prices of other tickets are wrong to fill the seats.

I would agree. Concentrate on making the existing fare types more attractive for passengers. I appreciate this would mean better AP and narrowing the peak, in the absence of meaningful fares reform.

A competent railway manager already is in most cases - west coast have cut back significantly on first clqss capacity with the standard premium product and east coast are pretty good at selling first into the leisure market, not least by having such terrible seats in standard. There is arguably a bit of a problem that these customers are often paying half what business travellers were previously willing to pay, but there don't seem to be any particular issues getting reasonable loadings.



GWR do seem to be not-great at this, although they've been hobbled by the fully dft-specified trains, with the Spartan first class interiors which don't even look as classy as standard on LNER. I'm not sure the dft specified the rather gruesome free snack box though. Not sure why you couldn't get Westbury-newbury on the train, but there's got to be something weird going on because the splitting side should have offered you at least an open first. Have you tried booking it separately to see what's offered on other sites?

Depends what leeway the competent manager is given by the powers that be.

 

[nw1]

But its not numbers its revenue that's the issue! Lots more people travelling on "cheap" tickets will not make up for the full price business meeting tickets that have now been largely lost to Zoom forever.

That suggests to me a broken system.

A properly-run rail system would cater for the actual demand in terms of numbers travelling, and if public money has to be spent, so be it.

Presumably (I don't know) business meetings weren't so much a thing in the 1960s and 1970s (I get the impression they were more a 1980s onwards thing, hence the rise in "Executive" services) yet they managed to run the railway without them in those times.

Of course this government don't seem to understand this, but they are quite happy to discuss cuts in income tax or abolition of inheritance tax in order, doubtless, to bribe people into voting for them (See other thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...nservative-party.238681/page-113#post-6315458). There's money for tax cuts, there's no money to run a railway properly - or, more seriously, to run the NHS properly.

 

[Howardh]

Ok, for the first time (to my knowledge) in my life I have hay fever. Nose has felt blocked for over a fortnight, I'm on tablets and they do help but sleeping is really difficult (the doc won't prescribe five pints of Old Peculiar, I have asked...).

So couple of questions, are lots of people having hay fever for the first time, am I alone in being hit with something I've never had issues with before; and has those covid lockdowns affected my immune system so it's not prepared for the usual stuff?? Or just one of those summers when plants have been seeding the atmosphere more than usual?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can develop it in adulthood, I did in my 20s, but I can't see how it would be related to lockdowns as you were still presumably exposed to pollen.

 

[Howardh]

You can develop it in adulthood, I did in my 20s, but I can't see how it would be related to lockdowns as you were still presumably exposed to pollen.

The first lockdown ended early July, so was thinking being indoors and only outside for a short time might have weakened the immune system? Admits though that recently weather maps have been showing pollen counts as "high" but never had this issue before, and I'm the thick end of 64. There's plenty of adulthood behind me (sadly...)

 

[nw1]

Ok, for the first time (to my knowledge) in my life I have hay fever. Nose has felt blocked for over a fortnight, I'm on tablets and they do help but sleeping is really difficult (the doc won't prescribe five pints of Old Peculiar, I have asked...).

So couple of questions, are lots of people having hay fever for the first time, am I alone in being hit with something I've never had issues with before; and has those covid lockdowns affected my immune system so it's not prepared for the usual stuff?? Or just one of those summers when plants have been seeding the atmosphere more than usual?

I've had a blocked nose for weeks this year, but none of the more unpleasant hay fever symptoms thankfully. I get the nasty symptoms only rarely: I recall 1985 and 1992 being specific years, and oddly, the weather in June in those two years could not have been more different.

I guess the weather has been highly unusual and erratic this year, swinging between extremely good and extremely bad for the time of year with little in between (driest February since 1993, wettest March since 1981, warmest June on record, and now a July seemingly devoid of summery weather), which might play a part in pollen production. Basically it seems to have been either very wet or very warm and sunny (though rarely at the same time).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2023 ==

The first lockdown ended early July, so was thinking being indoors and only outside for a short time might have weakened the immune system? Admits though that recently weather maps have been showing pollen counts as "high" but never had this issue before, and I'm the thick end of 64. There's plenty of adulthood behind me (sadly...)

For one thing I suspect that being confined in an enclosed space for weeks on end, breathing the same air, and only going out briefly cannot be that great for your health. I certainly had a lot of headaches, dizziness and mild cold-like symptoms during the lockdown, more than normal. They went away once lockdown was over though, so not a long term thing: in fact if anything I have had less in the way of nasty colds since Covid - just one (Covid itself in Nov 2021 which resembled a bad cold) and long may that continue!

 

[Howardh]

I guess the weather has been highly unusual and erratic this year, swinging between extremely good and extremely bad for the time of year with little in between (driest February since 1993, wettest March since 1981, warmest June on record, and now a July seemingly devoid of summery weather), which might play a part in pollen production. Basically it seems to have been either very wet or very warm and sunny (though rarely at the same time).

I tend to agree with that, plants up here were gasping for water at one stage - no proper rainfall for weeks on end, at a time when they should be shedding their pollen. Now it's been so wet they are probably making hay and making up for lost time!

Interesting that while we were going through the first covid lockdown, we then had weeks of dry weather which we couldn't fully enjoy. The dry spell then, and this year, are coincidentally around the same time!

 

[VauxhallandI]

Spent a daft ten minutes getting pro vaccine comments removed from the BBC have your say section on the result of the tennis.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/66212814

Direct comment as well as multiple posts using “Novak” as Djokovic’s first name.

Amazing how the BBC allowed them to be posted in the first place, can you imagine if the comments had been reverse? They’re still at it in their own little way although they are full steam ahead on climate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The first lockdown ended early July, so was thinking being indoors and only outside for a short time might have weakened the immune system? Admits though that recently weather maps have been showing pollen counts as "high" but never had this issue before, and I'm the thick end of 64. There's plenty of adulthood behind me (sadly...)

If you did stay indoors the whole time it might have done. Personally I spent more time outdoors, be that taking more exercise than at other times or in the garden, during lockdown than ever, as did a lot of people. But if you have the windows open the pollen still comes in.

The "weakening" thing wasn't generalised, but more that you got a worse reaction to things (e.g. that supercold everyone got) because it hadn't come across those things. Unless your house is air conditioned, staying indoors shouldn't mean you avoid pollen.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jul 2023 ==

Amazing how the BBC allowed them to be posted in the first place, can you imagine if the comments had been reverse? They’re still at it in their own little way although they are full steam ahead on climate.

Like the Forum they are primarily reactively moderated, so they need reports to deal with them. However I can't see an issue with pro vaccine comments, as they are at least based in scientific fact. It is perfectly valid to say you don't want any vaccine, your body your choice, but most antivaxx comments you see online are not based in any sort of fact. The only basis on which they'll be removing them is that they are off topic.

 

[duncanp]

Social distancing and compulsory masks are still in force on the Isle of Wight passenger launch between East and West Cowes.

This is almost two years to the day since all restrictions were lifted, on a service which is, er, in the open air, and thus carries a very low risk anyway.

Isle Of Wight

www.iwfloatingbridge.co.uk

When the floating bridge service is suspended the council will arrange for a replacement foot passenger launch to operate.​

The launch has a normal capacity of 74 and will operate daily between 05:00 and 23:00 (Monday to Saturday) and between 06:30 and 23:00 (on Sundays)​

Please note:​

1. Customers with small children, prams, pushchairs and those with restricted mobility may find it difficult to use the service especially during periods of exceptionally high tides.​

​

1. The service is not suitable for customers with limited mobility.​

​

If the floating bridge has to be withdrawn from service for technical reasons or for weather or environmental reasons with no prior notice, it is recognised that foot passengers with mobility issues including those in wheelchairs may effectively be stranded on the opposite side of the river to their residence and precluded from onward travel. Accordingly the council has established a framework of taxi operators with accessible vehicles that can be contacted to arrange transport for service users in the aforementioned categories. If you require a taxi to enable travel please let a member of the crew know and we will arrange this for you.​

The above service will run from the West Cowes Floating Bridge Office Medina Road to East Cowes Ferry Road / from East Cowes Ferry Road to the West Cowes Floating Bridge Office Medina Road.​

​

1. Covid-19 - as part of the social distancing restrictions the capacity of the launch is temporarily reduced to 50. Face coverings must be worn at all times.​

 

[island]

Are you sure that isn’t just out of date information like most of the other notices to such effect in the country?

 

[duncanp]

Are you sure that isn’t just out of date information like most of the other notices to such effect in the country?

It probably is out of date, but there really is no excuse for companies not to update their website accordingly.

But some maskivists never give up flogging a dead horse.

Healthcare group calls for return of face mask guidance

Workers affected by Covid accuse the Scottish government of "playing Russian roulette" with staff and patients' health.

www.bbc.co.uk

Doctors call for return of face mask guidance​

Doctors have warned the decision to remove face mask guidance in healthcare settings is "playing Russian roulette" with staff and patients' welfare.
It was withdrawn in May in hospitals, dentists and GP surgeries having been in place since June 2020.
The decision came after the World Health Organization declared Covid-19 was no longer a global emergency.
The Scottish government said the country had entered "a calmer phase" of the pandemic.
Doctors from the British Medical Association (BMA) Scotland condemned the decision at the time.

Now, the Scottish Healthcare Workers Coalition has written to ministers to highlight the "very serious flaws" in changing the guidance.
They said healthcare workers are at significantly higher risk of contracting the virus and some have developed post-Covid chronic illnesses.
The group is demanding the reintroduction of masks in all health and social care settings and a commitment to improving ventilation and air filtration as a matter of urgency.

'Dangerous decision'​

In the letter, the coalition states the updated guidance is not based on the science of coronavirus transmission and "represents a flawed and dangerous decision which will result in more infection in health and social care settings".
Dr Shaun Peter Qureshi, of the Scottish Healthcare Workers Coalition, said: "At-risk patients have entirely legitimate concerns that they may endanger their health by visiting their GP or hospital.
"With at least 4% of NHS staff now living with chronic post-Covid complications, the Scottish government must follow the evidence and improve protections from the airborne spread (of the virus) in healthcare settings, not reduce them."

David Osborn, a chartered safety and health practitioner, said: "It is unclear that any health and safety risk assessment was undertaken by the Scottish government before making their decision to abandon universal masking which is viewed by some patients as playing Russian roulette with their health."
A Scottish government spokesman said: "The guidance on the extended use of face masks and face coverings in health and social care settings was withdrawn in May.
"This means that patients, service users, staff and visitors are no longer strongly recommended to wear face masks or coverings in these settings.
"This is a proportionate approach which recognises that Scotland continues to adapt to the Covid-19 pandemic and has entered a calmer phase of the pandemic."
The spokesman said any change to the extended use of face masks and face coverings guidance was in relation to the latest scientific evidence and was continually under review.
He added: "The removal of this extended guidance does not stop or prevent staff, service users or visitors from wearing a mask."

 

[Bletchleyite]

It probably is out of date, but there really is no excuse for companies not to update their website accordingly.

But some maskivists never give up flogging a dead horse.

I'm not sure this is fair. Hospitals and surgeries are full of people who ARE sick. If I was a medical professional I'd give serious consideration to wearing an FFP3 mask for any appointment likely to involve a respiratory condition. It would to me be good if the authorities might consider providing that, just as I'd expect to be provided with any other relevant PPE by my employer. (I don't see much point in the patient wearing a flimsy piece of cotton rag, though - it'd be more about providing properly fitted, genuinely protective FFP3 masks to doctors etc if they wish to wear them).

This isn't about normal levels of exposure to diseases maintaining a healthy immune system, it's about people whose job it is to deal with diseases day in, day out. A bit like I'd absolutely wear a mask if I was going to be working sanding a wall down indoors or with e.g. asbestos.

Everyone wearing one in public is unnecessary, but there are jobs where a mask is a sensible piece of normal PPE, and always has been, since long before COVID.

 

[nw1]

It probably is out of date, but there really is no excuse for companies not to update their

website accordingly.

But some maskivists never give up flogging a dead horse.

Healthcare group calls for return of face mask guidance

Workers affected by Covid accuse the Scottish government of "playing Russian roulette" with staff and patients' health.

www.bbc.co.uk

If they worried as much about the appalling state of the NHS, the inability to easily get a doctor's appointment, and the withdrawal of NHS dental services for many (in my case because enforced closures during the first lockdown drove the NHS dentists away, according to the receptionist) as they do about Covid in mid 2023, it would be very much better for everyone.

 

[duncanp]

I'm not sure this is fair. Hospitals and surgeries are full of people who ARE sick. If I was a medical professional I'd give serious consideration to wearing an FFP3 mask for any appointment likely to involve a respiratory condition. It would to me be good if the authorities might consider providing that, just as I'd expect to be provided with any other relevant PPE by my employer. (I don't see much point in the patient wearing a flimsy piece of cotton rag, though - it'd be more about providing properly fitted, genuinely protective FFP3 masks to doctors etc if they wish to wear them).

This isn't about normal levels of exposure to diseases maintaining a healthy immune system, it's about people whose job it is to deal with diseases day in, day out. A bit like I'd absolutely wear a mask if I was going to be working sanding a wall down indoors or with e.g. asbestos.

Everyone wearing one in public is unnecessary, but there are jobs where a mask is a sensible piece of normal PPE, and always has been, since long before COVID.

But has there been any noticeable increase in illness and disease since the mask guidance was dropped?

Interestingly I was watching a program about the great plague of 1665 on Channel 5 last night, and the similarities between then and the COVID pandemic were striking.

People who wanted to leave London due to the plague had to apply to the Lord Mayor for a "health certificate", without which they wouldn't be admitted to taverns etc, (negative PCR test and vaccine certificate)

And the 17th century equivalent of contactless payment was to put the coins for your purchases in a jar of vinegar, which supposedly sterilised them.

Whether any of these measures did any good is questionable, because the plague was spread by body lice due to unsanitary conditions, and unless you deal with the root cause of any disease, other measures will only have a limited impact.

 

[nw1]

I'm not sure this is fair. Hospitals and surgeries are full of people who ARE sick. If I was a medical professional I'd give serious consideration to wearing an FFP3 mask for any appointment likely to involve a respiratory condition. It would to me be good if the authorities might consider providing that, just as I'd expect to be provided with any other relevant PPE by my employer. (I don't see much point in the patient wearing a flimsy piece of cotton rag, though - it'd be more about providing properly fitted, genuinely protective FFP3 masks to doctors etc if they wish to wear them).

This isn't about normal levels of exposure to diseases maintaining a healthy immune system, it's about people whose job it is to deal with diseases day in, day out. A bit like I'd absolutely wear a mask if I was going to be working sanding a wall down indoors or with e.g. asbestos.

Everyone wearing one in public is unnecessary, but there are jobs where a mask is a sensible piece of normal PPE, and always has been, since long before COVID.

The article, though, seems to be very much saying that Covid is the motivation behind the wish to re-introduce measures, rather than other, general health risks.

I really don't see Covid as a significant risk to the majority in mid-2023, and I would like to see health professionals with concerns about Covid redirect their concerns elsewhere, such as the problems with seeing a GP and the lack of access to an NHS dentist for many of us.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I really don't see Covid as a significant risk to the majority in mid-2023, and I would like to see health professionals with concerns about Covid redirect their concerns elsewhere, such as the problems with seeing a GP and the lack of access to an NHS dentist for many of us.

It's now basically just another flu, albeit with a different type of virus. We could do without it, but it just sits there alongside the others.

Were I a GP I'd be more concerned about other stuff.

 

[Dent]

I'm not sure this is fair. Hospitals and surgeries are full of people who ARE sick. If I was a medical professional I'd give serious consideration to wearing an FFP3 mask for any appointment likely to involve a respiratory condition. It would to me be good if the authorities might consider providing that, just as I'd expect to be provided with any other relevant PPE by my employer. (I don't see much point in the patient wearing a flimsy piece of cotton rag, though - it'd be more about providing properly fitted, genuinely protective FFP3 masks to doctors etc if they wish to wear them).

This isn't about normal levels of exposure to diseases maintaining a healthy immune system, it's about people whose job it is to deal with diseases day in, day out. A bit like I'd absolutely wear a mask if I was going to be working sanding a wall down indoors or with e.g. asbestos.

Everyone wearing one in public is unnecessary, but there are jobs where a mask is a sensible piece of normal PPE, and always has been, since long before COVID.

Have you read the article you are commenting on? It is not about healthcare professionals wearing FFP3 masks when appropriate, they are pushing for a return of guidance for everyone to wear face coverings.

I'm not sure what relevance sanding dust or asbestos have, neither of these are infections which maintain a healthy immune system through exposure, unlike respiratory infection which are.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure what relevance sanding dust or asbestos have, neither of these are infections which maintain a healthy immune system through exposure, unlike respiratory infection which are.

Normal exposure does this, yes. High levels of exposure in a medical type setting are not "normal" nor "healthy".

 

[adc82140]

Healthcare waiting rooms are a hotbed of disease and always have been. Even pre Covid I used to say that if I wasn't Ill before going to the GP I certainly would be after half an hour in that waiting room. But the answer isn't face masks. The effectiveness debate of non medical face coverings has been done many times here and I'm not going to risk the wrath of the mods by starting that again. The answer is bigger waiting rooms with proper ventilation, and heaven forbid better organisation of the NHS so we don't spend extended periods of time squashed up against people with suspected respiratory diseases.