• 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!

UK face coverings discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
17,910
Location
0036
You’re entitled to disagree, but given the way the public* and government mood is, I don’t think your argument would get anywhere in either court of law or of public opinion.

*By public I mean the general public; this rarefied forum has prevailing views which should not be imputed as general public.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,427
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
You’re entitled to disagree, but given the way the public* and government mood is, I don’t think your argument would get anywhere in either court of law or of public opinion.

*By public I mean the general public; this rarefied forum has prevailing views which should not be imputed as general public.

I think it's fair to say that with regard to masks this Forum's prevailing view (against them) is diametrically opposed to the general public view in the UK which appears to be strongly in favour.
 

westv

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2013
Messages
4,410
I think it's fair to say that with regard to masks this Forum's prevailing view (against them) is diametrically opposed to the general public view in the UK which appears to be strongly in favour.

I've no ides about where you live but here the public has only started wearing coverings since the rules were introduced so that says to me most can't be in favour.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Associate Staff
International Transport
Railtours & Preservation
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
4,581
I think it's fair to say that with regard to masks this Forum's prevailing view (against them) is diametrically opposed to the general public view in the UK which appears to be strongly in favour.
I think that's wide of the mark, tolerated is a word I'd use. From my own observations many people put masks on at last minute and take them off as soon as they can. In settings where they're not required few people seem to wear them. That doesn't seem to be behaviour of people strongly in favour.
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
3,407
I see a school in England has decided to go against the government guidance and mandate masks for all staff and pupils at all times, no exceptions/exemptions:



(https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....virus-face-masks-become-official-22475876.amp)

I think this is awful and I feel extremely sorry for the pupils of this school, clearly a decision that’s not at all based on evidence and is going to cause many issues :(

I would be removing my child from that school and asking the school governors to intervene. They have no basis in law to insist on this. What sort of poor leadership does that show? Same for the infant school on the news that had covered the place in hazard tape and made it look like a crime scene, rather than just removing articles that were not safe to be there.
 

RomeoCharlie71

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2017
Messages
1,854
Location
Scotland
I think it's fair to say that with regard to masks this Forum's prevailing view (against them) is diametrically opposed to the general public view in the UK which appears to be strongly in favour.
The general public who are in favour of face coverings were the ones wearing them before they were mandated.

The general public who will tolerate face coverings are the ones wearing them now, but weren't before they were mandatory.

The general public who aren't wearing them in shops now are exempt.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,427
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The general public who aren't wearing them in shops now are exempt.

Or are rebelling.

I would be removing my child from that school and asking the school governors to intervene. They have no basis in law to insist on this. What sort of poor leadership does that show? Same for the infant school on the news that had covered the place in hazard tape and made it look like a crime scene, rather than just removing articles that were not safe to be there.

If it's an academy, they don't need a basis in law other than "our school, our rules".
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
The general public who are in favour of face coverings were the ones wearing them before they were mandated.

Indeed - and certainly round here mask use had been falling (it was never very high to start with), and hardly anyone was wearing them in the few weeks before it was announced that they would be mandated in shops.
 

RomeoCharlie71

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2017
Messages
1,854
Location
Scotland
Indeed - and certainly round here mask use had been falling (it was never very high to start with), and hardly anyone was wearing them in the few weeks before it was announced that they would be mandated in shops.
Precisely the same in my local area too.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,427
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It is none of my business to assume that, so the view I take is that anyone not wearing one is exempt.

That's probably the right action to take with regard to them, but it is utterly naive to believe that everyone who is not wearing one is exempt, it's more that you have to be cautious in taking any action because they may be exempt.
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
3,407
It is none of my business to assume that, so the view I take is that anyone not wearing one is exempt.

People wearing and using them incorrectly have no excuses though, and that's quite a majority.

This. I work in the health service. I never challenge anyone not wearing one, as it's none of my business. However I will educate every single person I see at work not wearing one properly.
 

Spineynorman

Member
Joined
31 Jul 2017
Messages
7
The experience of myself and my wife in our shopping (not large supermarkets) is that, since the introduction of compulsory face coverings, many seem to assume it to be a a replacement for social distancing for some reason (feeling of invulnerability ?). I may have missed something but I thought that was still an important part of the "plan". Personally I would rather spend a short time in a shop with acceptable distancing in a calm and rational way without a mask than wear a mask and have people breathing down my neck.

There are certain cramped situations where, personally, I can see the sense in a mask so I'm happy to go along but I'd rather we kept a prudent distance also. My experience also is that there are more younger people not wearing masks although that is not a scientific study and again, without the facts to back it up, my suspicions are that there is more spreading of the virus by young asymptomatic spreaders, probably to more seriously affected individuals in household environments. I can understand the approach of the young because when you are young you don't have the same view of risk and, when most young people have probably not come across anyone of a similar age who has suffered from the virus, they don't perceive a problem, irrespective of whether or not there is an issue.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Associate Staff
International Transport
Railtours & Preservation
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
4,581
That's probably the right action to take with regard to them, but it is utterly naive to believe that everyone who is not wearing one is exempt, it's more that you have to be cautious in taking any action because they may be exempt.
To be honest I don't care whether they're exempt or not. It's non of my business and that's that.
 

Scrotnig

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2017
Messages
593
That's probably the right action to take with regard to them, but it is utterly naive to believe that everyone who is not wearing one is exempt, it's more that you have to be cautious in taking any action because they may be exempt.
As a member of the public you do not take ANY action at all, so you don't need to be concerned about it.
It is none of anyone else's business other than those with the power to enforce, such as the police, the law actually makes this clear.
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
3,407
my suspicions are that there is more spreading of the virus by young asymptomatic spreaders, probably to more seriously affected individuals in household environments.

Unless I've missed something there have been no increases in hospital admissions in these areas, so no one is being seriously affected. I don't count feeling a bit rough as being serious.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Associate Staff
International Transport
Railtours & Preservation
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
4,581
Unless I've missed something there have been no increases in hospital admissions in these areas, so no one is being seriously affected. I don't count feeling a bit rough as being serious.
Let's be honest who is likely to be seriously affected in a household with teenagers? Parents are unlikely to be seriously affected unless they had their children very much later in life?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,427
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
As a member of the public you do not take ANY action at all, so you don't need to be concerned about it.

Those two things are not connected. There may be no action I can realistically take (but I do have the right to register my concern with someone in charge of the location or a Police officer), but I may be concerned about anything I wish to be concerned about, and I'm very concerned about poor compliance by primarily groups of lads in their 20s which are very likely to be carriers.

My view remains that exemptions should have been managed formally via the NHS and proof should have been issued that could be shown on request.
 

carlberry

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2014
Messages
3,169
The general public who are in favour of face coverings were the ones wearing them before they were mandated.

The general public who will tolerate face coverings are the ones wearing them now, but weren't before they were mandatory.

The general public who aren't wearing them in shops now are exempt.
To miss quote some lines from 'Yes Minister':

Are you in favour of face coverings if it saves some people's lives and may mean the pandemic ends sooner?

Are you in favour of having to cover your face everywhere when the benefit is mostly to society as a whole, the benefit is fairly small, lots of people will hassle you if you forget it and you may feel claustrophobic?

The government would come up with better example questions of course, however the 'voice of the people' is usually the voice of the people asking the questions.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,906

carlberry

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2014
Messages
3,169
Let's be honest who is likely to be seriously affected in a household with teenagers? Parents are unlikely to be seriously affected unless they had their children very much later in life?
And they'll just be waiting for their grandparents to snuf it anyway so they can have the inheritance, so they might as well speed it up! :D
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
My view remains that exemptions should have been managed formally via the NHS and proof should have been issued that could be shown on request.

And how exactly do you think GPs would have managed to produce thousands and thousands of letters in less than two weeks?

Plus of course not all the exemptions are medical, and even of those which are there is no mention in the legislation of needing a formal diagnosis.
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
3,407
My view remains that exemptions should have been managed formally via the NHS and proof should have been issued that could be shown on request.

As if the NHS doesn't have enough to do at the moment.

And shown to who? I'm sure every shop worker and security guard hasn't signed all the requisite NHS employee confidentiality paperwork.

To quote the French police during the Occupation "your papers please". Very sinister.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
The government would come up with better example questions of course, however the 'voice of the people' is usually the voice of the people asking the questions.

Indeed - plus of course where and of whom they ask the questions - if their main audience is those who are already terrified of the virus then they are likely to get a higher rate of 'yes' responses than if they ask a group of blokes in their 20s.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
It doesn't need to say why, it just needs to say you are exempt. Do you also have a problem with the Blue Badge Scheme?

You keep banging on about the blue badge scheme. That is completely different - you need one in order to park in certain places; that is all. It does not impose an obligation on anyone to do something in all cases unless they can 'prove' why they aren't.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Associate Staff
International Transport
Railtours & Preservation
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
4,581
It doesn't need to say why, it just needs to say you are exempt. Do you also have a problem with the Blue Badge Scheme?
But there isn't a scheme for this and that's that. There won't be one as will take too much time to organise.
 

Scrotnig

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2017
Messages
593
I see a school in England has decided to go against the government guidance and mandate masks for all staff and pupils at all times, no exceptions/exemptions:



(https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....virus-face-masks-become-official-22475876.amp)

I think this is awful and I feel extremely sorry for the pupils of this school, clearly a decision that’s not at all based on evidence and is going to cause many issues :(
I agree that's awful. however are they actually saying no exceptions to masks?

It does say this in the article, as a direct quote from the school:

"Every student and member of staff must clean their hands as they enter each lesson. There are no exceptions or excuses."

I agree there should be no exceptions or excuses on hand washing, but it doesn't appear to say no exceptions to masks.

I cannot see that if someone has, for example, severe asthma or claustophobia that they could or would say "tough luck sunshine, put it on anyway". And if anyone DID say that, they should be in jail.
 
Last edited:

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
I cannot see that if some has, for example, severe asthma or claustophobia that they could or would say "tough luck sunshine, put it on anyway". And if anyone DID say that, they should be in jail.

But even if they do allow exemptions, how are those kids going to feel? It's highly likely to make them a target for bullying too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top