• 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.

big_rig

Member
Joined
21 Aug 2020
Messages
394
Location
London
Even within that quote it cites that there is a reduction in airborne virus from someone wearing a mask.

How ill you get is linked to how much viral load that you receive, which is why good ventilation of indoor settings is important, so if the amount of virus being left in the air is reduced after that person has left will impact on the likely outcomes from anyone sharing that space with them.

As such, even if there's the same number of cases then chances are those cases wouldn't be as extreme as if there was no mask wearing.

Again, I'd highlight


There's a few points that I would highlight:
- that data was on influenza viruses, as such Covid-19 might be different.
- that data was for healthcare workers, as such I assume that it was for their work setting and so likely to be where they are in an environment with high levels of virus (i.e. presumably treating those with it, otherwise they would have had to wear them a lot), was only them wearing a mask (so levels in the air would likely be higher than otherwise be the case, as others have cited masks can fairly easily reduce the level of virus by 50%) and for up to 12 hour shifts. The last point is fairly important as time is a major factor in the risk of exposure.
- likewise it's a virus which is very widespread in the community, as such there's not way of being sure where they were infected from (e.g. they could have caught from their kids or on public transport rather than at work)

Is there any data for Covid-19 which shows a similar situation, if so can you provide links?

As although colds are caused by other covid viruses, that doesn't mean that they are infectious in the same way. For instance there appears to be limited evidence for surface contact infections.

No. No no no. It absolutely does not say that masks reduce viral load.

It includes that as an assumption the author has made and not backed up with any evidence. Saying ‘I think masks might reduce viral load so I’ll include that’ does not mean they do. I’m afraid this is like banging ones head against a brick wall.

I can’t repeat this enough. Just saying something does not make it true.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,927
Location
First Class
Even within that quote it cites that there is a reduction in airborne virus from someone wearing a mask.

How ill you get is linked to how much viral load that you receive, which is why good ventilation of indoor settings is important, so if the amount of virus being left in the air is reduced after that person has left will impact on the likely outcomes from anyone sharing that space with them.

As such, even if there's the same number of cases then chances are those cases wouldn't be as extreme as if there was no mask wearing.

My understanding of the viral load theory is that they block large droplets caused by coughing and sneezing, and probably talking. In other words, they prevent people spitting all over each other, but so do tissues and good manners. The benefit of the former is that you can bin them and then sanitise, or if possible, wash your hands rather than leave them strapped across your face all day. So, assuming you’re breathing normally and you walk through a train carriage for example, they do nothing. Virus particles contained in your breath either go straight through them or out the top/bottom/sides, but you leave behind the same amount as you would if you weren’t wearing one.

That’s my understanding in simple terms. If there is a better explanation or clear evidence to the contrary I’d be interested to see it as I haven’t seen anything to date.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,236
Location
UK
Supposedly the Danish study is in peer review, so we could have some more conclusive results in a few days.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,957
Location
Ely
My understanding of the viral load theory is that they block large droplets caused by coughing and sneezing, and probably talking. In other words, they prevent people spitting all over each other, but so do tissues and good manners. The benefit of the former is that you can bin them and then sanitise, or if possible, wash your hands rather than leave them strapped across your face all day.

That's my understanding too, and note that no-one seems to ever talk about what happens to the bad stuff in the droplets after they are caught by the mask. Presumably the droplets evaporate fairly quickly (skin is warm), and leave the bad stuff behind to be sent out as aerosols on the next breath/sneeze/cough, which appears to be worse in terms of transmission than droplets.

So it seems plausible to me that a mask may be doing something of some use *immediately* after being put on, but very quickly becomes of no use whatsoever (and possibly makes things worse). A tissue is almost certainly better for the reasons you mention.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
6,181
On the train yesterday the guard announced "Thank you to everyone wearing a mask. And to those who are not, thanks for the new lockdown which is coming our way from next week".
The idea that the small number of people travelling by train, and the even smaller number going without masks, has made the slightest difference to the lockdown outcome is bonkers.
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
3,407
Just had an email from the school. Mask required by parents at drop-off and pick up, which is outside. Two words. Sod off. Can't see any legislation covering this. Social distancing in the queue however has collapsed. They should be targeting this.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,927
Location
First Class
Just had an email from the school. Mask required by parents at drop-off and pick up, which is outside. Two words. Sod off. Can't see any legislation covering this. Social distancing in the queue however has collapsed. They should be targeting this.

I think people need to make a stand against this sort of thing or it will continue to creep....
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Just had an email from the school. Mask required by parents at drop-off and pick up, which is outside. Two words. Sod off. Can't see any legislation covering this. Social distancing in the queue however has collapsed. They should be targeting this.

One of my colleagues reported similar at the school where his kids go - and apparently they have a crap one way system as well which leads to people bunching up together.
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
3,407
In addition, just before half term they were 10 minutes late opening the gates because they were waiting for it to stop raining. Notwithstanding that the kids were left outside in stair rod rain, it meant a clash at the entrance with the next year group.
 

Jaden_emerald

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2018
Messages
18
The main problems in my eyes are: 1) a number of people in the UK just have to put your nose in others' business (rather than focusing on, you know, keeping your distance), and 2) many of you care too much about what other people (whom you have no obligation towards besides not deliberately harassing/endangering them) think of you. That's why exemption badges are a thing; being given looks and prompted to say you're exempt is apparently a nightmare for many.

FWIW over here they merely recommend wearing a mask on public transport, and so all of this toxicity is virtually non-existent, and in fact the majority of people do wear one.
 
Last edited:

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,476
The main problems in my eyes are: 1) many of you Brits just have to put your nose in others' business (rather than focusing on, you know, keeping your distance), and 2) many of you care too much about what other people (whom you have no obligation towards besides not deliberately harassing/endangering them) think of you. That's why exemption badges are a thing; being given looks and prompted to say you're exempt is apparently a nightmare for many.

FWIW over here they merely recommend wearing a mask on public transport, and so all of this toxicity is virtually non-existent, and in fact the majority of people do wear one.
There is also the role of British bloody-mindedness, where recommendations provoke extremes of compliance or rejection.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,906
Guard on my GA train home announced this afternoon that "due to government requirements you must wear a face covering, unless you are in possession of special dispensation that you are unable to wear a mask...also 2m social distancing, or 1m if you are wearing a mask. Oh and you need to possess a ticket to travel too".

All a bit of a mess. Wasn't impressed to be honest, they guards don't seem to do much other than sit in the back can and make the odd announcement when they feel like it. They could at least make them accurate and intelligible.
 

Jaden_emerald

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2018
Messages
18
Guard on my GA train home announced this afternoon that "due to government requirements you must wear a face covering, unless you are in possession of special dispensation that you are unable to wear a mask...also 2m social distancing, or 1m if you are wearing a mask. Oh and you need to possess a ticket to travel too".

All a bit of a mess. Wasn't impressed to be honest, they guards don't seem to do much other than sit in the back can and make the odd announcement when they feel like it. They could at least make them accurate and intelligible.
I've found the announcements of many UK conductors to be highly...er, creative! "And by this I mean cover your nose AND mouth, not the chin, not the table, because that's not how it works"
 

RomeoCharlie71

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2017
Messages
1,854
Location
Scotland
Stagecoach are stating that "if you're exempt, you need to show a Journey Assistance card, Government exemption card or Sunflower lanyard", which as we should know by now, is complete and utter codswallop.

Further down the page it states "we reserve the right to refuse people travel if they're not wearing a face covering", which is also against the Government guidance.

(my emphasis)
 

Jaden_emerald

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2018
Messages
18
Stagecoach are stating that "if you're exempt, you need to show a Journey Assistance card, Government exemption card or Sunflower lanyard", which as we should know by now, is complete and utter codswallop.

Further down the page it states "we reserve the right to refuse people travel if they're not wearing a face covering", which is also against the Government guidance.

(my emphasis)
Whilst recently visiting Manchester I had a bus 143 driver (Stagecoach) tell me exemption cards constitute required proof that's posted to you, but I told him it's downloadable online, is NOT endorsed by a physician and so does NOT constitute proof and is OPTIONAL, but in vain. Combined with doubting my age (in itself fine by me, though his suggestion that I as a 15-year old couldn't possibly be travelling abroad alone was pathetic) it caused me to hop on the adjacent 142, where I was cleared without a word.

Already lodged a complaint to Stagecoach Manchester. Due to the website info I'll send a complaint to the Stagecoach headquarters too.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,036
Just had an email from the school. Mask required by parents at drop-off and pick up, which is outside. Two words. Sod off. Can't see any legislation covering this. Social distancing in the queue however has collapsed. They should be targeting this.

Had a similar communication from one of our local schools (even as someone who thinks that it's worth giving wearing masks a go generally) this is something which is pointless.

However I would highlight that they did highlight that you'd need to continue to leave 2m space, not gather, etc.
 

VauxhallandI

Established Member
Joined
26 Dec 2012
Messages
2,749
Location
Cheshunt
Whilst recently visiting Manchester I had a bus 143 driver (Stagecoach) tell me exemption cards constitute required proof that's posted to you, but I told him it's downloadable online, is NOT endorsed by a physician and so does NOT constitute proof and is OPTIONAL, but in vain. Combined with doubting my age (in itself fine by me, though his suggestion that I as a 15-year old couldn't possibly be travelling abroad alone was pathetic) it caused me to hop on the adjacent 142, where I was cleared without a word.

Already lodged a complaint to Stagecoach Manchester. Due to the website info I'll send a complaint to the Stagecoach headquarters too.
Good on you, keep us posted please
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
17,910
Location
0036
Has anyone actually complained about overzealous mask enforcement (including failing to recognise exemptions, requesting proof of exemptions improperly, insisting on masks being worn in a location where they are not legally required, etc.) and had a positive outcome?
 

VauxhallandI

Established Member
Joined
26 Dec 2012
Messages
2,749
Location
Cheshunt
My complaint has been dragging on for a month. Two weeks with the offenders and now two weeks with the same moor era who are denying that the offenders have done anything.

who do I turn to when the council as enforcers are not following the law!?
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
On the train yesterday the guard announced "Thank you to everyone wearing a mask. And to those who are not, thanks for the new lockdown which is coming our way from next week".

I am able to wear a mask, but if I was on a train and heard that announcement, I would take my mask off in protest. <( <( <(

And I fully intend to make a number of leisure journeys by train during the next few weeks, for the purposes of exercise.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
16,035
Location
St Albans
I am able to wear a mask, but if I was on a train and heard that announcement, I would take my mask off in protest. <( <( <(

And I fully intend to make a number of leisure journeys by train during the next few weeks, for the purposes of exercise.
So would you do that in front of BTP and tell them that is is a protest over an announcement?
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
So would you do that in front of BTP and tell them that is is a protest over an announcement?

It would depend whether the guard came down the train again.

If he did, I would tell him exactly what I thought of his announcement.

And then if he called the BTP, I would tell them that I can't wear a mask due to asthma, which can be proved from my medical records, and that the law states that no proof of exemption is required.

Any fines fixed penalty notices would be contested in court.

It is time to stand up to mask bullies, see the story below.



When Georgina Fallows even contemplates putting on a mask, the flashbacks to her rape can be overwhelming and debilitating. She is not alone.

Rape survivors are among those voicing deep concerns about the stigma and ensuing “mask rage” attached to not wearing a face covering in shops, on transport and in other public places, prompting calls for better recognition of legitimate reasons why people are exempt.

A number of rape and sexual abuse survivors have told the charity Rape Crisis they are so scared of being confronted and verbally abused for not wearing face masks that they are avoiding places where they may be challenged.

“A significant proportion of rape survivors had their mouths or noses covered, or were choked or smothered, as part of the abuse and violence they experienced,” said Kate Russell, the national spokesperson for Rape Crisis England and Wales. “Covering their face and nose now can trigger flashbacks, panic attacks and severe anxiety.”

Severe distress is recognised by the government as a reason for a legal exemption from the mandatory use of face coverings. But rape victims still fear they will be castigated.

Russell said: “There’s a lot of assumptions that people who aren’t wearing face masks are behaving that way because they’re selfish, stupid, careless or a combination of all three. This lack of awareness is creating legitimate anxiety among rape survivors that if they go out and about they might not be met with empathy and care.”

Fallows, a 29-year-old solicitor, suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and cannot bear to have her mouth covered, years after her experience of rape.

“For part of my rape, he had his hand over my mouth. As a result, anything over my mouth – even an oxygen mask – can trigger a flashback. And that is hugely distressing. Physically, it feels like I’m back there again and he’s raping me and I am dying,” she said.

The distress she suffers amid flashbacks can be so severe that paramedics have felt it necessary to call the police to hold her down so they can sedate her. “It’s absolutely horrendous. I would like to be able to wear a mask, not just for my own health, but because I don’t want to make other people feel uncomfortable. But even the thought of putting on a mask makes me very, very, very panicky.”

When she tried to get her hair cut after lockdown, another customer interrogated her about her lack of a mask, refusing to accept Fallows’ reply that she was exempt.

“She told me that was ridiculous and said I had no proof. I cried all the way home. She truly believed that I was a self-centred, ignorant girl who didn’t give a **** about anybody else. I felt completely worthless.”

Since then, whenever she has tried to go to an enclosed public space without a mask, she has been challenged. She is now avoiding all shops and public transport which, since she has no car, is severely restricting where she can go. “I can’t see my family, who live two hours away. If I want to go anywhere, I have to walk.”

She fears this could leave her vulnerable to another attack – she was dragged off the street by her rapist – and so spends a lot of time alone in her bedroom. “I’ve tried so hard to rejoin life again, as it were. But it feels like it has all been taken away again.”

She contacted her MP, local councillor and mayor to urge them to mount a public awareness campaign about the legitimate reasons for mask exemptions, but received no response.

She has waived her right to anonymity to raise awareness. “People feel like they have the right to challenge you, and that is awful. You wouldn’t look at me and know I’d been raped, but I was, and it’s a huge problem for me. I spend most of my time trying to forget what happened to me. I don’t need to be challenged about this three or four times a day, just trying to live my life. All it does is remind me of something I’m desperately trying to forget.”


Rape Crisis wants shops and public transport companies to display signs and remind customers there are legitimate reasons people may not be wearing masks, which may not always be visible or obvious, and discourage customers from challenging each other.

The Oxfordshire Sexual Abuse and Rape Crisis Centre has compiled a list of ways in which some survivors of sexual violence have found it possible to wear face coverings.

“The list offers support and advice for survivors around face coverings and how they can perhaps make the experience of wearing a face covering less traumatic,” said Russell. She urged any survivor who is distressed or concerned about wearing a face mask to get in touch with Rape Crisis nationally or a local service.
 

Skimpot flyer

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
1,938
Has anyone actually complained about overzealous mask enforcement (including failing to recognise exemptions, requesting proof of exemptions improperly, insisting on masks being worn in a location where they are not legally required, etc.) and had a positive outcome?
I complained via email to Cancer Research UK, whose signage in their shop makes demands that masks be worn, with no mention of exemptions.

I reminded them that this is in breach of the law, specifically The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Undertakings) (England) Regulations 2020 which state

(3) A notice under paragraph (1)(a) must be displayed in a conspicuous location at the relevant area
(4) The information to be given to the person under paragraph (1)(b) is that the person is required to wear a face covering unless an exemption applies to the person or the person has a reasonable excuse not to wear a face covering


I also added

Your sign makes no mention of exemptions, and implies that people such as my elderly mother, who has vascular dementia (and is thus exempt from wearing a face covering) is not welcome in your shop.

Shops not complying with the relevant legislation can be subject to a Fixed Penalty Notice of £1,000, rising to a maximum of £10,000.

I urge you to comply with the law and change your signage accordingly

I got a positive response, the crucial part of which was as follows:


Please be assured that we take feedback such as this very seriously and as such I have raised your comments through to the Area Manager that looks after the shops in the area. I can confirm that I have received an update from our Health and Safety Trading Manager and the sign is due for an update, it is currently with our designers and these changes will be implemented with new signage in shops appearing very shortly. Thank you once again for bringing this matter to our attention.

Once again, I would like to apologise for any personal concern caused and I do hope my email reassures you of how seriously we treat feedback such as this.

Kind Regards

Adam Boutle
Complaints Executive
Cancer Research UK
 

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
6,592
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
I am seriously considering lodging a complaint to a pharmacy I visited yesterday. Despite wearing my sunflower lanyard, I was refused service unless I stood out in the street

I informed them in no uncertain terms that this was discrimatory and blatant treatment as a second-class citizens. I politely refused to allow them to serve me in the street and added that I would be putting in a formal complaint.

Come to think of it, there was no signage on display citing exemptions
 

6862

Member
Joined
3 Dec 2014
Messages
506
I informed them in no uncertain terms that this was discrimatory and blatant treatment as a second-class citizens.

Definitely complain. Refusing someone service in somewhere as essential as a pharmacy for being different to the majority (in the eyes of the government) has a worrying resemblance to certain historical periods we now look back on with disgust. We must stand up to this sort of thing. If we don't learn from history, it will repeat itself.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,476
Definitely complain. Refusing someone service in somewhere as essential as a pharmacy for being different to the majority (in the eyes of the government) has a worrying resemblance to certain historical periods we now look back on with disgust. We must stand up to this sort of thing. If we don't learn from history, it will repeat itself.
The pharmacy's behaviour is wrong, and it is right that it is complained about. Comparing it to historic persecutions, however, is just nuts. You could equally well argue that the signatories of Great Barrington are persecuting those different from the majority (i.e. particularly vulnerable to Covid) are being persecuted by being confined to their homes; both arguments are ludicrous and historically illiterate.
 

6862

Member
Joined
3 Dec 2014
Messages
506
The pharmacy's behaviour is wrong, and it is right that it is complained about. Comparing it to historic persecutions, however, is just nuts. You could equally well argue that the signatories of Great Barrington are persecuting those different from the majority (i.e. particularly vulnerable to Covid) are being persecuted by being confined to their homes; both arguments are ludicrous and historically illiterate.

I do not think that it the discrimination is currently equal or comparable to historic persecutions, but rather that it is something we have to be aware of stumbling into in the headlong rush to introduce new laws and rules. Masks are the most visible outward sign of all the new laws, and are therefore a likely target for those people who want to treat others as second class citizens.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
16,035
Location
St Albans
It would depend whether the guard came down the train again.

If he did, I would tell him exactly what I thought of his announcement.

And then if he called the BTP, I would tell them that I can't wear a mask due to asthma, which can be proved from my medical records, and that the law states that no proof of exemption is required.

Any fines fixed penalty notices would be contested in court.

It is time to stand up to mask bullies, see the story below.

So your statement in post #5690 was misleading as it implies that you would wear a face covering normally, and would only take it off as some sort of protest, (which a BTP officer might reasonably take issue with).
 
Last edited:

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
20,387
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
So your statement in post #5690 was misleading as it implies that you would wear a face coverring normally, and would only take it off as soem sort of process, (which a BTP officer might reasonably take issue with).

Better just not to wear the filthy thing in the first place. If people have a problem with that then they should keep their distance, which they should be doing anyway.
 

43066

Veteran Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
12,089
Location
London
I’d be grateful if the pro-mask posters on this thread could address the following points:

Despite mask wearing being very prevalent, there has been no reduction of virus transmission since their introduction. That has also been the case in countries such as France where it’s been basically mandatory to wear a mask whenever you’re not in your private home.

We were told that masks would help us get back to normality and yet, months after their introduction, here we are poised to enter another lockdown.

The established scientific consensus up until this pandemic was that masks in non clinical settings are not beneficial. The WHO has changed its position, but has admitted that was in response to political lobbying rather than scientific reasons.

Our government (which is clearly incompetent, and tells lies at the drop of a hat) has told us “the science is changing”, but has yet to publish said science.

Will there ever come a point when you finally accept that masks don’t make any meaningful difference?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top