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've noticed you using this word "flimsy" a few times. If you're referring to those blue bibs that I see some people wear, then they're OK at catching potentially contagious droplets of spit, phlegm, etc. that may pass an infection onto someone else. They can reduce spray, but of course, they're not going to be as effective at filtering aerosolised particles as other coverings. Should there perhaps be a "standard" agreed on by the powers that be if they are to be effective to a certain level?
Sars-CoV-2 is now known to spread through tiny aerosol particles. Flimsy loose fitting masks, such as the blue surgical masks, are not designed to filter such particles, which can simply pass through the mask as well as out to the sides of the mask.
To be effective, as a minimum you would need an FFP2 (aka N95) mask requirement.
There are a number of papers and studies looking at the use and effectiveness of face coverings (not necessarily N95-rated ones) for controlling and limiting the spread of disease. If there was sufficient evidence to the contrary, then like others, I may feel sceptical about wearing them. But today and come Tuesday, if the situation I'm in calls for wearing a "flimsy" piece of cloth (I'm very selective about the ones I wear, actually - blue surgical masks aren't really my thing) then that's what I'll be doing.
Real world studies have not found flimsy masks to be effective and if they were effective, why does Wales have higher case rates than England? Why did cases recently shoot up in Germany and other places that go crazy for masks?
Real world studies do find FFP3 masks to be highly effective, but in order to avoid transmission you would need to wear them at all times around anyone not in your household. You would have to ban eating and drinking out. You would need to bring furough back to achieve that.
I really don't want to have a major falling-out with people here, so I'm going to apologise if I've caused any upset - you may have noticed that this is a particular... topic... that I have strong feelings about, as many others seem to as well. I can only ask for your forgiveness if we've landed on opposite sites. And, to use a fairly cliché phrase again, "On this matter, my friends, I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to disagree."
I do also want to add as well, because this is definitely an underlying topic theme, that I am generally against authoritarianism. There are many attacks on our civil liberties - a lot of them going unchallenged and unseen and this is something I am wholly against.
So I really do understand if people's reluctance is down to being "told" to do it rather than just being asked nicely.
The last 18 months really has changed things in our world. Some things for the better, and some things for the worse. One of the things that definitely falls into the latter is what we're seeing with governments around the world tightening the screws "for the greater good", seeing that people are allowing it, and then being tempted to continue to do so during peacetime or times outside of crisis. On this I'm definitely with you.
*At this point*, *why* are we trying to stop the spread of a respiratory virus that everyone will encounter at some time or other? This now appears to has become 'something we have to try to do, whether possible, sensible, logical or desireable'. Do you think we should do it forever?
Without wishing to answer for them, I can only guess their answer is to reduce transmissions during the winter when the NHS is under pressure and to postpone those infections until the Spring/Summer. However hospitalisations have continued to decline for many weeks now, despite an increase in (mild or asymptomatic) 'cases', so this argument seems weak to me.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I am very sad to read a lot of the comments on here.
Unfortunately my wife is on immunosuppressant drugs; this is probably the worst time in history to be on them.
She had to have 3 vaccinations even before she had her booster.
It is sad that we live in a society where so many people do not care if she and others like her may die as a result of small inconveniences like putting a mask on.
I am sad to read your comments; it is sad we live in a society where people such as yourself have been mislead into thinking that other people wearing flimsy loose fitting masks protects your wife and that the vaccines are ineffective.
In reality, the vaccines we have work very well and they even work well in people who are immunocompromised. However if any such person wants additional protection, they have the choice to wear a highly effective FFP3 mask which offers pretty much 100% protection (or an FFP2 gets close); the wearer of such a mask does not need to worry about other people as they are protected.
I’m not sure you’re seeing my point. You were suggesting to Berliner to move to another country if he doesn’t like one aspect of our culture. Just like some Brexiteers tell Remainers to move to the EU if they don’t like the UK decision.
I never said I did. I was merely pointing out that telling someone to move to another country because they don’t like a certain aspect of the UK is a bit silly.
And if you want to fight for something, rather than ‘moving abroad if you don’t like it’, then surely you’ll agree that saying the same thing to Berliner was possibly wrong, and really not helpful to a healthy debate.
My local pharmacy has insisted on mask wearing throught this year even after lockdown lifted. no mask, no service
There is a local shop where mask wearing is preferred, although I am not sure whether they would refuse service if you weren't wearing a mask
Likewise the pharmacy attached to my GP surgery has been masks throughout. Also they make people of all ages stand outside in all weathers whilst they get the prescription ready.
Likewise the pharmacy attached to my GP surgery has been masks throughout. Also they make people of all ages stand outside in all weathers whilst they get the prescription ready.
If loose cloth face cloths had more than a negligable effect at best against Covid, I would wear one, I suspect most here would. So if a Bacterial respiratory disease was on the loose I would happily mask up.
Condemning people for putting other people at risk of Covid if they don't wear a mask is like codemning them for driving faster than 5mph because that puts others at risk.
We could save 2,000 lives a year by imposing a national speed limit on the roads of 5 MPH. We don't, does that mean the government and those who drive faster than 5mph have blood on their hands?
I'm sure there are plenty of anti car types who would impose a national speed limit of 5mph. However the governments job is to govern for the greater good, which means ignoring them, even if that means some individuals pay the ultimate price. On face covering, the government have failed in this key duty by caving to the "if it saves one life" fanatics, despite the scientific studies being done showing they range from negligable effect to no effect.
If the government really thought face covering was necessary, they would mandate FFP3 masks (which do actually have some benefit) and hand them out free. After all they cost a fraction of the cost of lateral flow tests that they hand out free in tens of millions like confetti.
It is difficult to get proper analogies with masks, but I think it is very important to recognise that the sort of masks most people wear to comply with mandates, combined with the infrequency at which many people replace (or wash) them, and the general poor standards in relation to how to handle / store them, are simply not effective.
It is not a question of whether "masks" are effective or not; tight fitting FFP3 masks when correctly worn at all times when in close proximity to others are pretty much 100 per cent effective even when in close contact with people who are actually infected. But wearing flimsy masks does result in infections occurring when in proximity to infected individuals; this is to be expected as standard masks are not in any way shape or form designed to filter virus particles, and that goes for the material they are made from as well as the fact they are loose fitting.
So if we are not going to mandate everyone wears tight fitting FFP2/3 masks at all times, there really is no point mandating anything; anyone who wants extra protection can make their own choice to wear an FFP2/3 if they wish to do so.
Seatbelts are often given as an analogy which is wrong (masks are not the comparator at all; vaccines are) but if people must use the analogy then it is like including string seatbelts in the comparison and saying they count and that it is "better than nothing" (!)
...
As a Society we have become much more selfish. The "me, me, me" entitled attitude is much more prevalent today than it was in the past. This is not to say everyone is selfish of course. ...
Indeed and IMO it has increased since March 2020. Just one example is at the first hint of a supply shortage stockpiling rather than just buying the quantity, if any at all, that is needed until the next planned shopping trip or delivery. I wonder how many still have unused packets and tins bought 20 months ago and what has gone to waste because not used before the expiry date ?
For items not in short supply depending on usage and lifespan keeping up to a month ahead not least incase needing to self-isolate is of course sensible.
If one person wearing a (correctly fitted) mask reduces airborne transmission by 50%, and you have two people wearing masks (a potential transmitter and a potential recipient), 50% x 50% results in an approximate reduction in transmission by about 75%. I'm definitely oversimplifying things bit here, but there are plenty of studies out there for your reading pleasure that may have slightly different numbers, but agree that, when combined with other measures such as testing and vaccinations, is just one effective tool in an arsenal of weapons we have against Covid.
If these figures were anywhere near to reality in a retail or public transport situation then I and I suspect others would have a different attitude.
I believe if people just kept space around them there would be a much bigger reduction in transmission. e.g. in the checkout queue I would prefer to be 1.5 - 2m from the person / group ahead and similarly those behind me but no masks than wearing a mask but breathing down my neck.
I agree it is disgusting. I am sick of the lies, threats, false promises and hypocrisy. The chance of me voting for any of the main political parties for the foreseeable future is zero, and that may well turn into never
Count me in to this group. I can not recall the last election where my vote was not for the party I considered to be the least worst of the options. Once I submitted a spoilt paper by writing ' non of these ' to show my opinion.
I have had a quick search but have not seen any reference either way to hairdressers, beauticians, massage therapy etc.
Have I missed this or so far is it a void in the public announcements until the regulations are formally published ?
This ‘masks work’ argument is not backed by any evidence.
I have travelled to work on public transport throughout the entire pandemic. Each journey has four components: bus, train, tube, Overground, the return journey has the same components in reverse.
For the sake of argument, I’ll use a very low estimate of how many strangers I’ve encountered in the last 86 weeks. Based on just 3 strangers being near me on each component of my journeys (and it’s been at least 5 times that in recent months) I have had interactions with 8 x 3 x 5days x 86weeks strangers.
At least 10,320 interactions and I haven’t caught Covid.
None of my family members have had it either, despite being in each other’s homes.
I won’t be wearing a mask. It’s virtue-signalling nonsense, not backed by scientific evidence.
Seatbelts are often given as an analogy which is wrong (masks are not the comparator at all; vaccines are) but if people must use the analogy then it is like including string seatbelts in the comparison and saying they count and that it is "better than nothing" (!
Mental health may be a factor, as well as lifestyle choices.
Pro maskers no doubt see me as reckless, and would be shocked I have not become ill, but the reality is I've not had a day off work sick since before some of the students I work with were born.
I've travelled a lot during the pandemic, met a lot of people and work in close proximity to many people. I clearly have not avoided exposure to viruses.
Therefore the solution is surely not to avoid exposure but to prepare yourself for exposure through vaccination, eating well, being active, being fit, having good social contacts, avoiding too much stress etc.
That is what really works. Not wearing flimsy masks in shops!
Those rendered politically homeless need to look at Reform UK.
Yes I know they probably stand as much chance of winning a seat as we do of winning the National Lottery jackpot - but even a swing to them will set the Conservative Party alarm bells, especially if they let Labour in.
The forthcoming by-election results will be very interesting.
I am very sad to read a lot of the comments on here.
Unfortunately my wife is on immunosuppressant drugs; this is probably the worst time in history to be on them.
She had to have 3 vaccinations even before she had her booster.
It is sad that we live in a society where so many people do not care if she and others like her may die as a result of small inconveniences like putting a mask on.
The confidence limits, however do overlap with zero, it's more statistically accurate to say that no effect was observed that is clearly distinguishable from experimental uncertainty.
The confidence limits, however do overlap with zero, it's more statistically accurate to say that no effect was observed that is clearly distinguishable from experimental uncertainty.
Wife just had a message telling her that the booster jab is now available for her to have. She asked me, given last night's first of no doubt many tightening of restrictions again, "what's the point"? She has had Covid already, a few months back, too.
Tough to give her a really convincing reason to go and get jabbed, if I'm honest.
I have now had three covid vaccines, which were sold to me on the basis that they will allow a return to normal life. It's approaching two years since Covid started so I think given that I have had the jabs as society expects then then we should be allowed to get on with life. Lets keep masks as a personal choice.
It's also not like Boris or most of the Conservatives belive in them as shown by their actions over the last few months.
Wife just had a message telling her that the booster jab is now available for her to have. She asked me, given last night's first of no doubt many tightening of restrictions again, "what's the point"? She has had Covid already, a few months back, too.
Tough to give her a really convincing reason to go and get jabbed, if I'm honest.
No need to do it. As a previous post said, if this variant causes vaccine escape, a booster doesn’t help. If it doesn’t escape, existing jabs sort it. 2 is plenty.
This thread is very disappointing. I have sparred with the OP @yorkie before and reckon he needs to decide whether being an agitator is compatible with his duties of moderator (the two words mean diametrically opposite things). My concern is that lot of us suffer with autism and other conditions that make us perhaps more suggestible to conspiracy theorising and in my opinion it is not a good look for a supposed moderator to be championing such drivel. Whilst I have a little life experience to avoid getting caught up in such forum groupthink, there are perhaps those younger or with less savvy who might think that what they read here represents some sort of industry view that tacitly endorses breaking to law, with severe consequences out in the real world.
I don't think you can take this forum section as representative of the rail community as a whole, or even of RailUK. Its not, in my experience representative of those I ecounter in my daily liffe.
This section of the forum is populated almost exclusively by those who take the view that virtually all public health measure against COVID do more harm than good, and are unecessary, and who stridently assert that others are not entitled to their opinion. Anyone who dares to express a contrary opinion can expect to be insulted, told to emigrate, accused of being a work-shy couch potato who enjoys the personal benefits of lockdowns, or a callous authoritarian. No wonder everyone has given up and left.
Boom! If I wanted to socialise in a hotbed of conspiracy theories and trolling, I could have stayed on facebook where at least I could post stuff to people I know from real life. I am also starting to question the point of this forum and suspect it is now set on the path to self destruction.
As for willingness to stand up for principles, on this forum it seems to be the likes of @Bayum, @Berliner and @alex397 who are the ones willing to push back against the prevailing groupthink and risk rail forum martyrdom for their view of the situation. How much easier it is to parrot the conspiracy-theory-de-jour on these forums than to defend the government policy which has actually been very conservative relative to near EU countries (and also much less successful).
Germany: Was told off for wearing a cloth mask, seems cloth / scarves etc are not allowed in shops / venues etc, as they are deemed ineffective, you must wear disposable or FFP ones.
Covid Pass to access venues / eateries in Holland seems to be followed by all locations, you show the vaccination cert, it is scanned by a mobile app, and you get a tick or a cross, needless to say a X and you don't get in !
The science around the use of masks by the public to impede COVID-19 transmission is advancing rapidly. In this narrative review, we develop an analytical framework to examine mask usage, synthesizing the relevant literature to inform multiple areas: population impact, transmission...
The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic, and yet the debate trundles on. How much evidence is enough?
This thread is very disappointing. I have sparred with the OP @yorkie before and reckon he needs to decide whether being an agitator is compatible with his duties of moderator (the two words mean diametrically opposite things).
Seeing this makes me think do you want Railforums to be run as per the BBC where there is tight control on the opinions and views of the staff or do you prefer the GB News model where staff can have diverse views?
Part of the frustration generated in the past 19 months or so is that mainstream media has not been opinionated on a very important topic.
This thread is very disappointing. I have sparred with the OP @yorkie before and reckon he needs to decide whether being an agitator is compatible with his duties of moderator (the two words mean diametrically opposite things). My concern is that lot of us suffer with autism and other conditions that make us perhaps more suggestible to conspiracy theorising and in my opinion it is not a good look for a supposed moderator to be championing such drivel. Whilst I have a little life experience to avoid getting caught up in such forum groupthink, there are perhaps those younger or with less savvy who might think that what they read here represents some sort of industry view that tacitly endorses breaking to law, with severe consequences out in the real world.
Boom! If I wanted to socialise in a hotbed of conspiracy theories and trolling, I could have stayed on facebook where at least I could post stuff to people I know from real life. I am also starting to question the point of this forum and suspect it is now set on the path to self destruction.
As for willingness to stand up for principles, on this forum it seems to be the likes of @Bayum, @Berliner and @alex397 who are the ones willing to push back against the prevailing groupthink and risk rail forum martyrdom for their view of the situation. How much easier it is to parrot the conspiracy-theory-de-jour on these forums than to defend the government policy which has actually been very conservative relative to near EU countries (and also much less successful).
What conspiracy theories? The fact that we have to live with Covid and get on with our lives?
We were told to get vaccinated in the conditions we could have a return to normality as in 2019 and before levels of normality and that has not happened.
Vaccine passports were a conspiracy once you know…..
But you and @Bayum and @Berliner keep fighting that good fight against the “conspiracy theorists” (even though if you still believe that this is for our health that pretty much makes you the conspiracy theorist at this point for believing such drivel!)
It’s been two years of our lives wasted for what? So jobs could be lost? So businesses can go under? So mental health issues like depression, anxiety and suicide can skyrocket?
If wanting normality to return makes me a conspiracy theorist nut job then I wear that label with pride.
We have had no discussion on the negative effects of lockdown, we have both mainstream parties backing each other not caring about that issue and the media are to blame for being continually hysterical about this virus with a 99.5% survival rate and an average age of death of 82.
This thread is very disappointing. I have sparred with the OP @yorkie before and reckon he needs to decide whether being an agitator is compatible with his duties of moderator (the two words mean diametrically opposite things). My concern is that lot of us suffer with autism and other conditions that make us perhaps more suggestible to conspiracy theorising and in my opinion it is not a good look for a supposed moderator to be championing such drivel. Whilst I have a little life experience to avoid getting caught up in such forum groupthink, there are perhaps those younger or with less savvy who might think that what they read here represents some sort of industry view that tacitly endorses breaking to law, with severe consequences out in the real world.
Boom! If I wanted to socialise in a hotbed of conspiracy theories and trolling, I could have stayed on facebook where at least I could post stuff to people I know from real life. I am also starting to question the point of this forum and suspect it is now set on the path to self destruction.
As for willingness to stand up for principles, on this forum it seems to be the likes of @Bayum, @Berliner and @alex397 who are the ones willing to push back against the prevailing groupthink and risk rail forum martyrdom for their view of the situation. How much easier it is to parrot the conspiracy-theory-de-jour on these forums than to defend the government policy which has actually been very conservative relative to near EU countries (and also much less successful).
I’m not really one for conspiracy theories (never attribute to conspiracy what can be attributed to incompetence!), however I am very suspicious about the motives behind yesterday.
Boris has a bad couple of weeks and is angry about being universally slated (and possibly more worryingly for him a lot of this coming from his own side, including murmurings of a leadership challenge), so we get a hissy-fit, some spiteful new restrictions, and an ultimatum to behave ourselves or Christmas gets cancelled.
Can we not see why there’s some suspicion and anger?
Perhaps the biggest problem is we have a prime minister that has lost a massive amount of trust, as a result of his continued failure to conduct himself in a way which we all expect of a serving prime minister. Even just taking this current situation, we were told July was “irreversible”, now (as we all knew) it turns out this is total rubbish. When we have a prime minister that is so cavalier with truth and lies seem to be a way of life for him, why on earth should any of us take him seriously?
It isn’t like his judgement is particularly sound, he even managed to himself wind up in intensive care. Great act to follow.
The confidence limits, however do overlap with zero, it's more statistically accurate to say that no effect was observed that is clearly distinguishable from experimental uncertainty.
OK, I think I found it. Page 13 gives the prevalence ratio for symptomatic seroprevalance as 0.894 [0.782, 1.007] at 5% confidence interval. The lower confidence limit is indeed poor. They started out with symptomatic seroprevalnce as their measure, so that is what they quote.
By contrast, page 15 gives the prevalence ratio for WHO-Defined COVID-19 symptoms as 0.865 [0.803, 0.928] at 1% confidence interval. That suggests a high confidence that surgical masks are at least 7% effective at preventing COVID-19 symptoms.
The 'with baseline controls' figures are not radically different.
As ever with statistics, the answer can vary depending on exactly what you are measuring.
Wife just had a message telling her that the booster jab is now available for her to have. She asked me, given last night's first of no doubt many tightening of restrictions again, "what's the point"? She has had Covid already, a few months back, too.
Tough to give her a really convincing reason to go and get jabbed, if I'm honest.
I reckon plenty of people will think "what's the point" in light of more restrictions. Not a good strategy if they want to maximise the number of people getting vaccinated.
For those defending the mandating of masks on here, have you been wearing them over the past few months since they became a personal choice ? Not just in the instances here but all those times you've been mixing with the public indoors ?
OK, I think I found it. Page 13 gives the prevalence ratio for symptomatic seroprevalance as 0.894 [0.782, 1.007] at 5% confidence interval. The lower confidence limit is indeed poor. They started out with symptomatic seroprevalnce as their measure, so that is what they quote.
By contrast, page 15 gives the prevalence ratio for WHO-Defined COVID-19 symptoms as 0.865 [0.803, 0.928] at 1% confidence interval. That suggests a high confidence that surgical masks are at least 7% effective at preventing COVID-19 symptoms.
The 'with baseline controls' figures are not radically different.
As ever with statistics, the answer can vary depending on exactly what you are measuring.
Typically the standard is the 95% confidence interval, I think the most often cited number from that paper is something like 0-22% reduction; the zero being the important part.
Wife just had a message telling her that the booster jab is now available for her to have. She asked me, given last night's first of no doubt many tightening of restrictions again, "what's the point"? She has had Covid already, a few months back, too.
Tough to give her a really convincing reason to go and get jabbed, if I'm honest.
By contrast, page 15 gives the prevalence ratio for WHO-Defined COVID-19 symptoms as 0.865 [0.803, 0.928] at 1% confidence interval. That suggests a high confidence that surgical masks are at least 7% effective at preventing COVID-19 symptoms.
No one sane doubts that surgical masks such as FFP3 have such an effect (I thought it was nearer 14% than 7%).
However that is surgical tight fitting masks, not bits of loose cloth which have negligable if any effect.
If this is such a concern to the government, why are they not mandating surgical masks and handing them out free in the same way that they spend billions handing out tens of millions of far more expensive lateral flow tests?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You say it’s a false equivalence, and I disagree. I’ve already explained why I don’t think it’s a false equivalence. One person complains about they think there is a bit of selfishness amongst British society (not something I necessarily agree with), but your response was to tell them to move to another country. Just because there is one aspect they don’t like about the England or the UK, doesn’t mean they dislike everything else.
In my opinion, this was similar to some Brexiteers who think that just because some Britons hate the decision to leave the EU, it means they hate all aspects of the country and should ‘move’.
What else do I need to explain?
It’s fine to disagree and debate about this, and it’s great to hear others opinions, but you do seem to be an agitator which I don’t think is helpful to a constructive debate.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
For those defending the mandating of masks on here, have you been wearing them over the past few months since they became a personal choice ? Not just in the instances here but all those times you've been mixing with the public indoors ?
For those defending the mandating of masks on here, have you been wearing them over the past few months since they became a personal choice ? Not just in the instances here but all those times you've been mixing with the public indoors ?
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
