UK face coverings discussion

[Bletchleyite]

Anyone who is this paranoid about people wearing masks should simply eat at home and avoid getting themselves in a state.

Anyone who doesn't take the measures seriously should do that so they don't pose an unnecessary risk to those who do.

 

[DB]

Anyone who doesn't take the measures seriously should do that so they don't pose an unnecessary risk to those who do.

Right - so not being able to wear a mask is not taking the measures seriously, is it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Right - so not being able to wear a mask is not taking the measures seriously, is it?

Not considering what else you might do to ensure the safety of others if you can't wear a mask is, certainly. Such as doing your best (I know it's not always possible) to ensure 2m distancing.

The waiter discussed above failed miserably here. All he needed to do was ask for the items to be passed to him.

 

[43066]

Anyone who doesn't take the measures seriously should do that so they don't pose an unnecessary risk to those who do.

In terms of reasonable endeavours to distance, using hand sanitiser etc. I can see that argument. But in the case of masks, there is no evidence that they have any benefit, therefore someone not wearing one isn’t *actually* posing any additional risk.

“you should wear a mask to reduce risk to others” is a very different statement to: “you should wear a mask because the government have told you to, even though there’s no actual benefit to doing so”.

 

[NorthOxonian]

In terms of reasonable endeavours to distance, using hand sanitiser etc. I can see that argument. But in the case of masks, there is no evidence that they have any benefit, therefore someone not wearing one isn’t *actually* posing any additional risk.

“you should wear a mask to reduce risk to others” is a very different statement to: “you should wear a mask because the government have told you to, even though there’s no actual benefit to doing so”.

When it comes to masks, the evidence is looking quite strong that they reduce viral load. They probably don't reduce transmission (indeed some research suggests they may increase it), but if the people getting it off me only get a mild dose, they'll probably be alright.

I find wearing one extremely difficult (and am legally exempt), but I try my best. I don't want to get into a confrontation, and even if it hurts me a bit, it's probably not as bad as it making things much worse for someone vulnerable. So I suffer through it.

That said, I think any government mandate is a bad idea (people should come to my conclusions because they're logical, not because the government told them to), and I'm passionately opposed to us becoming a masked society in the long term.

 

[Yew]

When it comes to masks, the evidence is looking quite strong that they reduce viral load. They probably don't reduce transmission (indeed some research suggests they may increase it), but if the people getting it off me only get a mild dose, they'll probably be alright.

No, it isn't, there are some circumstantial observations, which in all likelihood is due to the observer effect of us seeing more tests.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm passionately opposed to us becoming a masked society in the long term.

I think this is a bit of an emotive term to be honest.

What I think would make sense long term is to follow the Asian model and, if you have a symptomatic respiratory infection (i.e. cold/flu), to wear a mask when you go out if you can't avoid doing so. Now mask wearing is normalised I may well consider doing this for the benefit of others.

 

[DB]

I think this is a bit of an emotive term to be honest.

What I think would make sense long term is to follow the Asian model and, if you have a symptomatic respiratory infection (i.e. cold/flu), to wear a mask when you go out if you can't avoid doing so. Now mask wearing is normalised I may well consider doing this for the benefit of others.

It's really not 'normalised' - most people do it under sufferance when they absolutely have to, and are highly unlikely to do it ever again if they aren't forced to.

 

[packermac]

I think this is a bit of an emotive term to be honest.

What I think would make sense long term is to follow the Asian model and, if you have a symptomatic respiratory infection (i.e. cold/flu), to wear a mask when you go out if you can't avoid doing so. Now mask wearing is normalised I may well consider doing this for the benefit of others.

Yes if we ever get over the pandemic I would like to think in the winter months especially and enclosed environments such as public transport that may become the norm. Certainly as a Gwilo in Hong Kong & also in Tokyo I have received many stares of resentment for not wearing one.

 

[bramling]

Yes if we ever get over the pandemic I would like to think in the winter months especially and enclosed environments such as public transport that may become the norm. Certainly as a Gwilo in Hong Kong & also in Tokyo I have received many stares of resentment for not wearing one.

It absolutely isn’t going to become any kind of normal, I can guarantee that now, so people thinking that might as well get the idea out of their heads now. Not happening. End of.

 

[james_the_xv]

As I see it my right to use the service as someone who is exempt trumps their paranoia. Frankly anyone who isn’t aware that the evidence in favour of masks is extremely weak isn’t deserving of much sympathy. If they’re that worried they’d fit a screen, or simply find another job.

That is where I think you're wrong. While you do have a right not to wear a mask via your exemption - you do not have the right to simply disregard another human beings safety and brush it off as a 'paranoia' and even worse, suggest they change career.

These people have families to provide for (some of whom may even be 'at risk') and are just trying to do that in the safest possible way given the circumstances. It's a poor situation to be in but it doesn't require an abject disregard for others' perceptions of how best to protect themselves during a pandemic. There is no trumping of rights in this situation, you have the same right to use the service as they do to refuse if they feel unsafe, and if no agreement can be reached then no service can change hands.

I'm not even going to start on the evidence for/against masks, as that's a route trodden much before in this thread but I will say that saying people don't deserve much sympathy if they don't believe in the effectiveness of masks is exactly the problem and that kind of rhetoric has the potential to be very damaging.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Oct 2020 ==

That said, I think any government mandate is a bad idea (people should come to my conclusions because they're logical, not because the government told them to), and I'm passionately opposed to us becoming a masked society in the long term.

I don't think there is any risk in becoming a masked society on the level seen in some of Asia - but the mandate for wearing one (in enclosed spaces at least) will last for as long as the virus remains a substantial risk to the population and there is no getting around that.

 

[43066]

When it comes to masks, the evidence is looking quite strong that they reduce viral load. They probably don't reduce transmission (indeed some research suggests they may increase it), but if the people getting it off me only get a mild dose, they'll probably be alright.

Are you sure about that?

When masks were introduced the message justifying them firmly centred around reducing transmission. It feels to me that the rather nebulous “viral load” argument is being used as a way of shifting the goalposts because, as you say, it’s now inconveniently obvious that masks have little to no effect on transmission. What is the new evidence on viral load, out of interest?

That is where I think you're wrong. While you do have a right not to wear a mask via your exemption - you do not have the right to simply disregard another human beings safety and brush it off as a 'paranoia' and even worse, suggest they change career.

In general terms people who are exempt may well have a disability, which means they do have a right to access transport where they can be accommodated with reasonable adjustments. In the case of an able bodied person who is unable to wear a mask the taxi company might make adjustments to the vehicle, or send a bigger vehicle to better enable distancing. But the onus is on the provider to make these adjustments. Simply refusing to carry passengers who are exempt is skating on very thin ice.

By contrast there is no absolute right to not be infected with a highly communicable, airborne disease. How could there ever be? The harsh reality is that some people (I’m one of them!) do jobs which cannot be done from home, and might put them into situations where they are at more risk of catching the virus. Ultimately people doing these jobs have the choice of either continuing to do them, doing something else instead, or giving up work and having no income.

We do need to get away from the emotive talk about safety etc. In this context. A taxi driver who is under 45 is far more likely to die in a car crash than they are of Covid so refusing to carry mask-less passengers while still being prepared to drive a car around to earn a living is irrational.

 

[Jimini]

Another belter from TfL here..

 

[packermac]

Another belter from TfL here..

It is aimed at the vast number of TFL passengers I see no issue. Those with a LEGITAMTE exemption will be aware of what the rules are. The "I am exempt brigade", when they are not, deserve whatever fine they are given.

 

[DB]

It is aimed at the vast number of TFL passengers I see no issue. Those with a LEGITAMTE exemption will be aware of what the rules are. The "I am exempt brigade", when they are not, deserve whatever fine they are given.

The point is that it is not legally compliant -they are obliged to mention exemptions, and that poster doesn't.

 

[35B]

Are you sure about that?

When masks were introduced the message justifying them firmly centred around reducing transmission. It feels to me rather that the rather nebulous “viral load” argument is being used as a way of shifting the goalposts because, as you say, it’s now inconveniently obvious that masks have little to no effect on transmission. What is the new evidence on viral load, out of interest?

In general terms people who are exempt may well have a disability, which means they do have a right to access transport, services subject to reasonable adjustments. In the case of a taxi the taxi company might make adjustments to the vehicle (or send a bigger vehicle to better enable distancing). But the onus is on the provider to make these adjustments. Simply refusing to carry passengers who are exempt is skating on very thin ice.

By contrast there is no absolute right to not be infected with a highly communicable, airborne disease. How could there ever be? The harsh reality is that some people (I’m one of them!) do jobs which cannot be done from home, and might put them into situations where they are at more risk of catching the virus. Ultimately people doing these jobs have the choice of either continuing to do them, or doing something else instead, or giving up work and having no income.

We do need to get away from the emotive talk about safety etc. In this context. A taxi driver who is under 45 is far more likely to die in a car crash than they are of Covid so refusing to carry mask less passengers while still being prepared to drive a car around to earn a living is irrational.

Again, if we differentiate between belief in the efficacy of masks, and the scenario outlined in posts above.

Whether or not we wear masks, we are ALSO supposed to maintain social distancing. The waiter did get it wrong in that event, because they chose to do their job in a way that unnecessarily exposed both them and their customers to greater risk of transmission when there were reasonable alternatives available as a way of doing their job. That, due to their exemption, they were maskless compounded the error; fortunately, the understanding of the transmission of this virus suggests that the absolute change in risk would have been very limited.

That brings in the question of viral load. In general news reporting, I have seen reference to viral load for some months as a possible explanation of differences in case severity and transmissibility. As I understand it, the way the Covid virus infects is partially dependent on dose, meaning that shorter exposure and/or more distant contact will reduce the impact on the person infected; a high dose of the virus being associated with more severe cases. The taxi driver in this scenario is not being entirely irrational; doing a job that must expose him to heightened risk because of his proximity to others, seeking to follow measures that the government are telling him are beneficial is an entirely rational response to risk. It may not, however, be a proportionate or reasonable response to that risk, even if the person with an exemption doesn't have protection under the Equalities Act.

As an aside, the case for face coverings (and I use the term to distinguish from medical masks of whichever grade) has long included the reduction in dose resulting from the filtering effect provided by those coverings. It is not new news - I recall reading of it back in the spring.

 

[Richard Scott]

We really do need some proper evidence for masks as whole thing is getting ridiculous based on the government and some people believing they do something. Would stop all these arguments once and for all. Show me some good solid evidence and I'll accept it, wear the mask (which I do but only because I have to) and carry on. If there is no decent evidence then ditch them and those that are exempt no longer have an issue with those that think this virus is worst thing ever. The whole issue is causing unnecessary issues for many.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another belter from TfL here..

Is Khan deliberately baiting Bozza with stuff like that, as it doesn't mention exemptions and is thus presumably not legal?

With regard to the "viral load" argument, if it's true (and I really think we need some research on it), then it could be a useful tool in attaining herd immunity with fewer deaths.

 

[43066]

Again, if we differentiate between belief in the efficacy of masks, and the scenario outlined in posts above.

The trouble is it’s impossible to get away from that question, because it underpins the nature of the debate. Are we discussing doing (or not doing) something which is proven to reduce risk, or something we are being asked to do for the sake of it?

If it’s the latter then anyone saying they are wearing a mask “for the benefit of others” is incorrect in making that statement - because there is no proven benefit. It then becomes a ritualistic act - much like saying a prayer for someone else!

Whether or not we wear masks, we are ALSO supposed to maintain social distancing. The waiter did get it wrong in that event, because they chose to do their job in a way that unnecessarily exposed both them and their customers to greater risk of transmission when there were reasonable alternatives available as a way of doing their job. That, due to their exemption, they were maskless compounded the error; fortunately, the understanding of the transmission of this virus suggests that the absolute change in risk would have been very limited.

The problem with that of course is that masks were paraded as something that would allow us to be in situations where social distancing wasn’t possible. That position seems to have been retreated from so we have ended up with masks required even when we can socially distance. So one of the benefits we were promised - that masks would get us back to normal - quite clearly hasn’t happened.

That brings in the question of viral load. In general news reporting, I have seen reference to viral load for some months as a possible explanation of differences in case severity and transmissibility. As I understand it, the way the Covid virus infects is partially dependent on dose, meaning that shorter exposure and/or more distant contact will reduce the impact on the person infected; a high dose of the virus being associated with more severe cases. The taxi driver in this scenario is not being entirely irrational; doing a job that must expose him to heightened risk because of his proximity to others, seeking to follow measures that the government are telling him are beneficial is an entirely rational response to risk. It may not, however, be a proportionate or reasonable response to that risk, even if the person with an exemption doesn't have protection under the Equalities Act.

Yep, the above seems pretty balanced. Unfortunately if you’re in the position of doing a job which exposes you to more risk there’s really nothing that can be done other than the options I outlined above. I don’t really see any way of getting around that unfortunately.

As an aside, the case for face coverings (and I use the term to distinguish from medical masks of whichever grade) has long included the reduction in dose resulting from the filtering effect provided by those coverings. It is not new news - I recall reading of it back in the spring.

It might just have been that the point was too subtle compared to the “reducing transmission” argument, but as it becomes clear that transmission hasn’t been reduced as we were promised, it’s difficult not to also doubt the argument re. viral load.

 

[VauxhallandI]

They survived driving their cabs before the masks were introduced; do they think the virus has changed?

 

[Bletchleyite]

They survived driving their cabs before the masks were introduced; do they think the virus has changed?

I wonder if/how much the stats for infections in taxi drivers has changed pre- and post-mask? It's not like a lot else has changed about the situation for them.

 

[35B]

The trouble is it’s impossible to get away from that question, because it underpins the nature of the debate. Are we discussing doing (or not doing) something which is proven to reduce risk, or something we are being asked to do for the sake of it?

If it’s the latter then anyone saying they are wearing a mask “for the benefit of others” is incorrect in making that statement - because there is no proven benefit. It then becomes a ritualistic act - much like saying a prayer for someone else!

You ignore an important point here, that goes beyond what you or I choose to do "for the benefit of others" - whether they are worn is currently a matter of law, not personal choice (with the sole exception of those entitled to exemptions who choose to wear a mask despite their exemption). That's why I, and @Bletchleyite, draw a distinction between our view of mask wearing per se, and of whether it's law.

The problem with that of course is that masks were paraded as something that would allow us to be in situations where social distancing wasn’t possible. That position seems to have been retreated from so we have ended up with masks required even when we can socially distance

I suggest not an unreasonable thing to do given the balance between benefit, harm, and adherence that any law needs to strike.

Yep, the above seems pretty balanced. Unfortunately if you’re in the position of doing a job which exposes you to more risk there’s really nothing that can be done other than the options I outlined above. I don’t really see any way of getting around that unfortunately.

I suggest there's a role for mutual respect on both sides of the debate which will soften this one.

It might just have been that the point was too subtle, but as it becomes clear that transmission hasn’t been reduced as we were promised, it’s difficult not to doubt the argument re viral load.

That is a fair comment as a logical extension of the arguments you make on the basis for mask wearing.

 

[MikeWM]

The point is that it is not legally compliant -they are obliged to mention exemptions, and that poster doesn't.

It would be rather nice if they did (it is a horrible poster), but I'm not sure it is the law. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations Of Undertakings) (England) Regulations 2020 (as amended) regulation requires the mention of exemptions and excuses for anywhere that the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) Regulations 2020 apply - ie. shops, cinemas, hotels, pubs, etc. etc. - but public transport has its own regulation, which isn't mentioned here.

That doesn't discount that there may be some other random SI that requires it for transport too, but I haven't yet encountered it.

 

[43066]

You ignore an important point here, that goes beyond what you or I choose to do "for the benefit of others" - whether they are worn is currently a matter of law, not personal choice (with the sole exception of those entitled to exemptions who choose to wear a mask despite their exemption). That's why I, and @Bletchleyite, draw a distinction between our view of mask wearing per se, and of whether it's law.

We are all in agreement that it is a legal requirement to wear a face covering in many circumstances, unless exempt. The point in making is that, irrespective of that, surely there is a fundamental difference between measures which have known benefit in terms of reducing spread, and measures which have no proven value?

In the absence of proof that masks work, I’d argue someone going out maskless (with no exemption) isn’t morally equivalent to someone going out and deliberately failing to distance (the latter being perfectly legal, because distancing is only guidance) because proximity is known to increase the risk of spread.

By the same token, the point @Bletchleyite made earlier, that he is going to wear a face covering to benefit others, is an interesting one, because I don’t think it’s possible to make that statement in the absence of evidence coverings actually work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

By the same token, the point @Bletchleyite made earlier, that he is going to wear a face covering to benefit others, is an interesting one, because I don’t think it’s possible to make that statement in the absence of evidence coverings actually work.

Most of Asia thinks they work for symptomatic infections, i.e. to stop you sniffing, coughing and snotting virus all over people. I don't think that is in very much dispute; it's similar to catching your coughs in a handkerchief.

 

[Richard Scott]

Most of Asia thinks they work for symptomatic infections, i.e. to stop you sniffing, coughing and snotting virus all over people. I don't think that is in very much dispute; it's similar to catching your coughs in a handkerchief.

Just use a handkerchief then, probably more hygienic.

 

[big_rig]

Most of Asia thinks they work for symptomatic infections, i.e. to stop you sniffing, coughing and snotting virus all over people. I don't think that is in very much dispute; it's similar to catching your coughs in a handkerchief.

It may be that people there think that, but is there any evidence to prove it?

 

[DustyBin]

Is Khan deliberately baiting Bozza with stuff like that, as it doesn't mention exemptions and is thus presumably not legal?

With regard to the "viral load" argument, if it's true (and I really think we need some research on it), then it could be a useful tool in attaining herd immunity with fewer deaths.

We do need some proper research on it I agree. However, from what I’ve read to date, the reduction in viral load claim is based on the fact that they stop people spitting all over each other by providing a physical barrier to large droplets. I wouldn’t deny that that they do provide that barrier, but so does a tissue and I’ve found most people have the decency not to spit all over me in truth. I think pushing the use of tissues and hand sanitiser would be a better approach with genuine long term benefits to be honest.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We do need some proper research on it I agree. However, from what I’ve read to date, the reduction in viral load claim is based on the fact that they stop people spitting all over each other by providing a physical barrier to large droplets. I wouldn’t deny that that they do provide that barrier, but so does a tissue and I’ve found most people have the decency not to spit all over me in truth.

Look at someone speaking with a light behind them and you will change your mind. Pretty much everyone spits slightly while talking, they don't know they are doing it.

 

[43066]

Most of Asia thinks they work for symptomatic infections, i.e. to stop you sniffing, coughing and snotting virus all over people. I don't think that is in very much dispute; it's similar to catching your coughs in a handkerchief.

And yet the long established worldwide scientific consensus, up until this pandemic, was that they don’t make a material difference?

Coughing into a handkerchief may be good manners, but is there any evidence that it’s better then coughing into your hand? Or just not directly coughing over other people?

Should it be a criminal offence for people not to cough into a handkerchief in public?

Should it be a criminal offence to go outdoors and not quarantine when you have symptoms of flu (or any other illness?)