• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

TfL rules regarding face coverings and travelling round the Kennington loop

Status
Not open for further replies.

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
1,099
I went yesterday to Battersea and was in the second car as advised on a Kennington terminator
A very polite Instructor operator asked me to leave saying it was illegal for passengers to travel around the loop
He then got on a train and thus was about as effective at stopping me doing the loop had I really wanted to do it as Sadiq is making me wear a mask
I wonder why people like him can't mind their own business.
Power trip I guess
There were several drivers hanging around the platform end and so my advice to anyone trying the loop is to go nearer the back of the train where Mr instructor Operator and his mates will not need to concern themselfs with my business
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Ho Hum
I went yesterday to Battersea and was in the second car as advised on a Kennington terminator
A very polite Instructor operator asked me to leave saying it was illegal for passengers to travel around the loop
He then got on a train and thus was about as effective at stopping me doing the loop had I really wanted to do it as Sadiq is making me wear a mask
I wonder why people like him can't mind their own business.
Power trip I guess
There were several drivers hanging around the platform end and so my advice to anyone trying the loop is to go nearer the back of the train where Mr instructor Operator and his mates will not need to concern themselfs with my business

Drivers are always reluctant to take people round the loop in case handles start being pulled. There have also been a couple of cases over the years where people have tried to access the driver’s cab, which for some drivers is quite worrying given they’re on their own there.

This will be why your instructor operator was trying to dissuade.

The best place to position yourself is at the very back of the train. No one will bat an eyelid there.
 
Joined
5 Jan 2014
Messages
448
Ho Hum
I went yesterday to Battersea and was in the second car as advised on a Kennington terminator
A very polite Instructor operator asked me to leave saying it was illegal for passengers to travel around the loop
He then got on a train and thus was about as effective at stopping me doing the loop had I really wanted to do it as Sadiq is making me wear a mask
I wonder why people like him can't mind their own business.
Power trip I guess
There were several drivers hanging around the platform end and so my advice to anyone trying the loop is to go nearer the back of the train where Mr instructor Operator and his mates will not need to concern themselfs with my business
If one wishes to avail themselves of the privileges and benefits of society I think that it is only fair to follow the rules.
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,810
Location
UK
While it is not specifically against the rules to be carried around the loop, I believe it's illegal under railway bylaws to refuse to vacate an area of the railway when told to by a member of staff. So if a driver or platform staff member tells you to get off a train at Kennington you need to follow the instruction. If that goes beyond the requirements for clearing trains before the loop and causes delays as a result, between them and their line management I'd assume.

However there is a big difference between being instructed to get off a train and being told "this train is not in service".
 

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
1,099
If one wishes to avail themselves of the privileges and benefits of society I think that it is only fair to follow the rules.
Come on
You and I both know that if it really was against the rules they would tip out.
The TFL driver made up this rule
Another example of TFL making up things is a poster outside Pinner Station which gives instructions under TFL bylaws that masks must be worn and that it is an offence to breach the non existent byelaw and that i can be fined £1000 for breaching the non existent byelaw
I think that TFL might also follow the rules by not displaying posters that threaten people into doing things by telling blatant porkies
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
They don't want people to go around the loop because in the event of disruption an out of service train is often the last to be prioritised in moving . So you could get stuck there hours.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Come on
You and I both know that if it really was against the rules they would tip out.
The TFL driver made up this rule
Another example of TFL making up things is a poster outside Pinner Station which gives instructions under TFL bylaws that masks must be worn and that it is an offence to breach the non existent byelaw and that i can be fined £1000 for breaching the non existent byelaw
I think that TFL might also follow the rules by not displaying posters that threaten people into doing things by telling blatant porkies

There doesn't actually seem to be anything written down anywhere prohibiting passengers from being carried round the loop - the relevant trips in the timetable aren't for example listed as separate empty moves.

As I say, there are reasons why carrying general passengers round there is undesirable, and has at times been problematic, which is why staff won't be actively encouraging it, except in special circumstances like for example a wheelchair user.

By the same token however, enough people *do* get carried round there in error, so if anyone really wants to do it then just get on a Kennington train somewhere other than Kennington itself, sit at the very back of the train, and there won't be a problem. It's also worth adding that in the unlikely event there's some kind of points failure, having chosen to go for a trip round there it's only fair not to make a fuss about the possibility of being stuck there for potentially some time (though in practice such a failure will be highly disruptive, so they will be looking to fix it ASAP anyway).
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,768
Location
Herts
TfL has utterly sensible procedures (unlike NR and the TOCs) where local qualified staff can get out there and clip and scotch points to get things moving. With the usual caveats on competence and line blockages etc.

I recall , many years past asking a Guard (remember them) for a ride around the loop which he was happy to arrange. Train cleared out , including shifting a sort of passenger who you did not want on any train - when we came back in service , northbound , said "passenger" was there , so he arranged to ignore him ,and carried on to more for more valuable passenger flows .....

I thought ,anyway, OK to carry passengers round the loop ....but not on a nominated basis.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,495
They don't want people to go around the loop because in the event of disruption an out of service train is often the last to be prioritised in moving . So you could get stuck there hours.
Technically it's not out of service, otherwise they would go through and check thoroughly that it's empty as happens at Barking, for example. I did the Kennington loop about 10 years ago. I cannot remember if I got on at Kennington or the station before.
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
Technically it's not out of service, otherwise they would go through and check thoroughly that it's empty as happens at Barking, for example. I did the Kennington loop about 10 years ago. I cannot remember if I got on at Kennington or the station before.
Still there could be a line suspension which leaves it sitting in the tunnel for hours
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Still there could be a line suspension which leaves it sitting in the tunnel for hours

This scenario is quite unlikely, and if it were to happen the driver would check for passengers, and it would be dealt with accordingly just as any other train. Won’t be the top priority though, as there will likely be crowded trains to deal with, so you’ll be at the bottom of the resource queue!

It isn’t something I’d give too much thought to. Not quite into lottery-winning territory, but your chances of it happening are pretty close to zero.
 

spinba11

Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
182
As I say, there are reasons why carrying general passengers round there is undesirable, and has at times been problematic, which is why staff won't be actively encouraging it, except in special circumstances like for example a wheelchair user.
if a wheelchair user did go round the loop it would create a problem as southbound the level boarding point is the 2nd carriage and northbound it’s the 5th (the same carriage north and southbound). so if they were to go round it they would be on the 2nd carriage going north which means there’s a step down. That’s the reason I’ve not done the loop.
 

Daniel

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2005
Messages
2,529
Location
London
Ho Hum
I went yesterday to Battersea and was in the second car as advised on a Kennington terminator
A very polite Instructor operator asked me to leave saying it was illegal for passengers to travel around the loop
He then got on a train and thus was about as effective at stopping me doing the loop had I really wanted to do it as Sadiq is making me wear a mask
I wonder why people like him can't mind their own business.
Power trip I guess
There were several drivers hanging around the platform end and so my advice to anyone trying the loop is to go nearer the back of the train where Mr instructor Operator and his mates will not need to concern themselfs with my business

I apologise for the confusion. The only reason I said car 2 in my earlier response as this was discussing Sunday where trial operations were taking place. A member of station staff was therefore towards the rear of the train and was manually checking cars 4, 5 and 6. Cars 1, 2 and 3 would normally be checked by the T/Op, but on Kennington Loop trains weren't being detrained so the driver remained in the cab. Car 2 was, therefore, in my opinion, the best bet as being far back enough not to worry the T/Op looking through the peephole and forward enough not to have bothered the CSA.

However, now that we're in normal operations there are, for a while, going to be a group of Train Operators at Kennington platform 2, because there will be a driver change taking place for the Battersea extension trains. As others have said, under normal operations, you're probably best to stay on the rear of the train.

As others have already commented, Train Operators are often keen not to carry persons around the Kennington Loop, because it is by far our most frequent delay causing event on the Northern line - passenger alarms activated in the loop because of over-carried passengers. This is in addition to some recent events where over-carried customers have tried to access drivers' cabs, and in two occasions I can recall tried to access the track from the rear of the train.

I understand it is frustrating if a T/Op or I/Op does ask you to leave, but I do implore you to understand that there are reasons behind their request, other than just wishing to exert authority.
 

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
1,099
While it is not specifically against the rules to be carried around the loop, I believe it's illegal under railway bylaws to refuse to vacate an area of the railway when told to by a member of staff. So if a driver or platform staff member tells you to get off a train at Kennington you need to follow the instruction. If that goes beyond the requirements for clearing trains before the loop and causes delays as a result, between them and their line management I'd assume.

However there is a big difference between being instructed to get off a train and being told "this train is not in service".
I need to clarify as plenty of people on here know who I am and I would not want people to get the wrong idea that I am the type of jackass who would be inclined to delay trains to prove a point
I obeyed the instructions and got off the train immediately and travelled to Battersea on the following train
I did not try and get on the loop at all on Monday
My only point is how futile it is to throw someone off who will just go back to the previous station and try again if they are determined ( which I am not as I have done it previously)
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
This scenario is quite unlikely, and if it were to happen the driver would check for passengers, and it would be dealt with accordingly just as any other train. Won’t be the top priority though, as there will likely be crowded trains to deal with, so you’ll be at the bottom of the resource queue!

It isn’t something I’d give too much thought to. Not quite into lottery-winning territory, but your chances of it happening are pretty close to zero.

And presumably it is also undesirable to have a driver stuck with a train in a tunnel for hours (e.g. toilet needs); I presume there is no walking route for a driver to leave the train unattended in the loop?
 

Grumbler

Member
Joined
27 Mar 2015
Messages
508
Would it be possible to switch off the train lights (except the driver's can onviously) before going round the loop to reinforce the message that passengers must leave it?
 

Dstock7080

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2010
Messages
2,741
Location
West London
Would it be possible to switch off the train lights (except the driver's can onviously) before going round the loop to reinforce the message that passengers must leave it?
a passenger who remains on the train then stumbles and trips in the dark?
 

SargeNpton

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2018
Messages
1,308
Come on
You and I both know that if it really was against the rules they would tip out.
The TFL driver made up this rule
Another example of TFL making up things is a poster outside Pinner Station which gives instructions under TFL bylaws that masks must be worn and that it is an offence to breach the non existent byelaw and that i can be fined £1000 for breaching the non existent byelaw
I think that TFL might also follow the rules by not displaying posters that threaten people into doing things by telling blatant porkies
TfL Conditions of carriage, 19th July 2021 until further notice...
1632398393776.png
Presumably, if you ignore this and are asked to leave the train/premises - but don't - then you are in breach of the by-laws and can be subject to a fine.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,495
a passenger who remains on the train then stumbles and trips in the dark?
Switching off the lights is exactly what was done with slam door stock on BR. Pretty much impossible to ensure that a 12 car was empty short of locking every door with a carriage key which was rarely done. As far as I can tell it was relatively rare for people to get carried away although I did see some numpty leap onto a moving class 302 at Shoeburyness. He ended up in the sidings. Made me chuckle as I passed on the next passenger train and saw him being escorted back to the platform.
 

Grumbler

Member
Joined
27 Mar 2015
Messages
508
TfL Conditions of carriage, 19th July 2021 until further notice...
View attachment 103020
Presumably, if you ignore this and are asked to leave the train/premises - but don't - then you are in breach of the by-laws and can be subject to a fine.
As it is against the law to ask those who say the are exempt from wearing a mask what the medical reasons are, how can TfL possibly enforce this condtion of travel?
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
As it is against the law to ask those who say the are exempt from wearing a mask what the medical reasons are, how can TfL possibly enforce this condtion of travel?
They can't, beyond asking someone to wear a mask and if "I'm exempt" is the reply leaving them alone.
You'd have to say something like "I don't want to" to get thrown out.

"I'm exempt" is my stock reply if I'm asked to put a mask on. Sometimes I'll start with "I don't have one", and if the shop keeper or whatever suggests I buy one I tell them I'm exempt. That has ended the conversation every single time, but if they did persist I'd simply spend my money elsewhere.
My view is that everybody in England has been exempt since 19th July. So I don't even feel guilty about it.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
TfL Conditions of carriage, 19th July 2021 until further notice...
View attachment 103020
Presumably, if you ignore this and are asked to leave the train/premises - but don't - then you are in breach of the by-laws and can be subject to a fine.

No one is going to be fined for going round the loop, but if one asks a member of staff and get told no and then try to argue the point then it will invite issues…

…as I gather happened on Monday when someone had an argument and apparently quoted a forum post, though I’m not sure which forum.

Just to reiterate, the staff at Kennington are there for the purposes of crewing Battersea trains. It isn’t in their gift to grant anyone a ride round the loop, as courtesy dictates it’s really down to the driver of a loop train who they take with them. It is they who will be in the loop on their own with anyone. Some drivers may be comfortable with this, others won’t be, for entirely understandable reasons. Unfortunately there isn’t time for anyone to be asking during the short platform dwell time, where the allocated dwell time is taken up with making announcements and setting the train up for its northbound trip.

As has been posted before, loop trains are not routinely tipped out (though there may be the occasional siding train which will be), and there is no staff presence at the rear end of the platform. If anyone really wants to ride round the loop, this is how to go about it in a way which will not interfere with operations.

As an aside, I’m not sure why the loop has become such a fascination when it’s been there for nearly a century - one would think the Battersea extension would be the item of interest at this moment!

And presumably it is also undesirable to have a driver stuck with a train in a tunnel for hours (e.g. toilet needs); I presume there is no walking route for a driver to leave the train unattended in the loop?

Yes, though how much the driver kicks up a fuss will depend on where in their duty they are… Someone on their first trip probably won’t be too bothered, but someone on their last trip likely will be, unless they are glad of overtime!

You’re quite correct there is no walking route - it is essentially just like any other running line, in the same way it is fully signalled. I’d be surprised if a train has ever been dumped there, hence why the odds of being stuck in there for a long time are very low indeed.
 
Last edited:

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
2,690
Location
London
They can't, beyond asking someone to wear a mask and if "I'm exempt" is the reply leaving them alone.
You'd have to say something like "I don't want to" to get thrown out.

"I'm exempt" is my stock reply if I'm asked to put a mask on. Sometimes I'll start with "I don't have one", and if the shop keeper or whatever suggests I buy one I tell them I'm exempt. That has ended the conversation every single time, but if they did persist I'd simply spend my money elsewhere.
My view is that everybody in England has been exempt since 19th July. So I don't even feel guilty about it.

Whether exempt, or just not wanting to wear a mask for any reason, people going into crowded places - like some shops and many tube trains - who don't wear a mask are putting some of their fellows at unnecessary additional risk. I have friends with medical vulnerabilities such that, if they were to be exposed to the virus, could be in extreme danger. While a potentially dangerous version of the virus (as the most common current one is) continues to be so widespread, it's unfair and extremely selfish to put people at unnecessary risk by not wearing a mask - unless one's own reason for not doing so is really serious and unavoidable.

I'm as sick of wearing a mask as anyone is, and I look forward to a time - as soon as possible - when the prevalence of the virus, and the danger it poses, are sufficiently reduced that such things as mask-wearing become more or less irrelevant. (Though I suspect that, given the slowing of vaccine take-up, that time won't be as soon as I hope.) Meanwhile, I accept the mask constraint as a way of putting people I encounter at less risk than if I didn't wear one. I don't understand how someone can not feel guilty about deliberately choosing to put other people at additional risk of serious illness or death.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
Whether exempt, or just not wanting to wear a mask for any reason, people going into crowded places - like some shops and many tube trains - who don't wear a mask are putting some of their fellows at unnecessary additional risk.
I suggest you go and do some research on the effectiveness of masks: if you’re just wearing a cloth mask it has next to no effect. You need to be wearing FFP2/3 type (and wearing it correctly) for it to have any real effect and the vast majority of people who are still wearing masks aren’t.

I have friends with medical vulnerabilities such that, if they were to be exposed to the virus, could be in extreme danger. While a potentially dangerous version of the virus (as the most common current one is) continues to be so widespread, it's unfair and extremely selfish to put people at unnecessary risk by not wearing a mask - unless one's own reason for not doing so is really serious and unavoidable.
If it is that much of a risk to them, they should be wearing FFP2/3 type masks themselves. Are they?
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
Whether exempt, or just not wanting to wear a mask for any reason, people going into crowded places - like some shops and many tube trains - who don't wear a mask are putting some of their fellows at unnecessary additional risk. I have friends with medical vulnerabilities such that, if they were to be exposed to the virus, could be in extreme danger.
You're starting from the premise that a loosely fitted piece of cloth made to no standard achieves anything. I don't believe that it does.
Vulnerable people can protect themselves by wearing a proper FFP3 mask if they feel it necessary.
I don't understand how someone can not feel guilty about deliberately choosing to put other people at additional risk of serious illness or death.
Because I am not putting anyone at additional risk of anything.

But we are very OT now and will get told off by the mods ;)
 

southern442

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
2,186
Location
Surrey
You're starting from the premise that a loosely fitted piece of cloth made to no standard achieves anything. I don't believe that it does.
Vulnerable people can protect themselves by wearing a proper FFP3 mask if they feel it necessary.

This is not quite right. Your bog standard cloth face masks do two things, (although it is of course the wearer's duty to ensure that it fits as tightly as is comfortably possible) firstly they filter out droplets in the air (such as those from people who cough and sneeze), and they also filter out large airborne particles. It does not eliminate the risk of infection by a very long way, BUT it does reduce the risk to some extent. So you are automatically helping yourself, even by a small amount, by wearing one.

Secondly, and this is most important, it stops these things from getting OUT from you, and it is much much better at doing this. So other people wearing masks around you significantly reduces your risk of catching anything, not just covid. Therefore when you say:

Because I am not putting anyone at additional risk of anything.

This is wrong. By not wearing a mask you are putting everyone else at risk, if you have coronavirus but are asymptomatic (as is happening more often now due to the jabs etc) you are much much more likely to pass that on to someone else, maybe someone vulnerable, by not wearing a mask. Masks as a whole work best when everyone is wearing them, and this is why choosing not to wear one is not just an individual issue, as you are increasing the risk for everyone else.

This is very off topic and I'll get told off but it absolutely needs to be said. It seems to be a common misconception amongst many people and people are owed a full explanation of why it's important.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
This is not quite right. Your bog standard cloth face masks do two things, (although it is of course the wearer's duty to ensure that it fits as tightly as is comfortably possible) firstly they filter out droplets in the air (such as those from people who cough and sneeze), and they also filter out large airborne particles. It does not eliminate the risk of infection by a very long way, BUT it does reduce the risk to some extent. So you are automatically helping yourself, even by a small amount, by wearing one.

Secondly, and this is most important, it stops these things from getting OUT from you, and it is much much better at doing this. So other people wearing masks around you significantly reduces your risk of catching anything, not just covid. Therefore when you say:



This is wrong. By not wearing a mask you are putting everyone else at risk, if you have coronavirus but are asymptomatic (as is happening more often now due to the jabs etc) you are much much more likely to pass that on to someone else, maybe someone vulnerable, by not wearing a mask. Masks as a whole work best when everyone is wearing them, and this is why choosing not to wear one is not just an individual issue, as you are increasing the risk for everyone else.

This is very off topic and I'll get told off but it absolutely needs to be said. It seems to be a common misconception amongst many people and people are owed a full explanation of why it's important.
I disagree with almost every word, other than it being off-topic. I suggest we continue the discussion in a more appropriate part of the forum.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
I disagree with almost every word, other than it being off-topic. I suggest we continue the discussion in a more appropriate part of the forum.
I have moved the discussion following a report made through the report system.
TfL Conditions of carriage, 19th July 2021 until further notice...
View attachment 103020
Presumably, if you ignore this and are asked to leave the train/premises - but don't - then you are in breach of the by-laws and can be subject to a fine.
Absolutely not. TfL did request the Byelaws were changed but the Government denied their request; TfL have no right to fine anyone.

In theory TfL could ask a passenger if they are exempt and if the passenger says "no", TfL could ask the passenger to leave the premises. If the passenger refuses to do, in theory the police could be called. However it is not particularly likely that the police would actually attend to forcibly remove someone. This is a hypothetical scenario; in practice there is no enforcement of this T&C.

In contrast, the rule requiring passengers to stand on the right on escalators is enforceable as this is within the byelaws.
As it is against the law to ask those who say the are exempt from wearing a mask what the medical reasons are, how can TfL possibly enforce this condtion of travel?
They do not enforce it; around 50% of passengers wear them but in the evenings that drops to maybe 30% but it varies considerably by line, time of day and even the coach you are in.
This is not quite right.
No. @trebor79 is right,
Your bog standard cloth face masks do two things, (although it is of course the wearer's duty to ensure that it fits as tightly as is comfortably possible) firstly they filter out droplets in the air (such as those from people who cough and sneeze), and they also filter out large airborne particles. It does not eliminate the risk of infection by a very long way, BUT it does reduce the risk to some extent. So you are automatically helping yourself, even by a small amount, by wearing one.
There is no real-world evidence of this and such masks are specifically sold on the basis they do not protect the wearer.

Secondly, and this is most important, it stops these things from getting OUT from you, and it is much much better at doing this. So other people wearing masks around you significantly reduces your risk of catching anything, not just covid. Therefore when you say:
This is also incorrect. They do not filter aerosols, which carry virus particles.

This is wrong
No; the other comment is right.

By not wearing a mask you are putting everyone else at risk,
That is absolutely not true. People who choose not to be vaccinated are putting themselves at risk; that's it.

if you have coronavirus but are asymptomatic (as is happening more often now due to the jabs etc) you are much much more likely to pass that on to someone else,
Do you have real world evidence of this? Either way a flimsy loose fitting mask will not make any difference to transmission.

I do not agree that vaccines are increasing transmission but I think that is best discussed in a new thread; I will be happy to provide evidence disagreeing with you if you wish to create one.

maybe someone vulnerable, by not wearing a mask.
This is not true; wearing a flimsy mask does not protect anyone. Vulnerable people are still well protected by the vaccines. However a particularly vulnerable person could choose to wear a highly effective FFP3 mask (as correctly stated by @trebor79) and then it makes no difference what other people do; the wearer is well protected.

Masks as a whole work best when everyone is wearing them, and this is why choosing not to wear one is not just an individual issue, as you are increasing the risk for everyone else.
This is untrue; see above. And not everyone is going to wear them, whether you like it or not.
This is very off topic and I'll get told off but it absolutely needs to be said. It seems to be a common misconception amongst many people and people are owed a full explanation of why it's important.
Unfortunately the misconception is on you.

I suggest you go and do some research on the effectiveness of masks: if you’re just wearing a cloth mask it has next to no effect. You need to be wearing FFP2/3 type (and wearing it correctly) for it to have any real effect and the vast majority of people who are still wearing masks aren’t.
That's right.
If it is that much of a risk to them, they should be wearing FFP2/3 type masks themselves. Are they?
Good question; if they are, then they are protected, regardless of what others do

You're starting from the premise that a loosely fitted piece of cloth made to no standard achieves anything. I don't believe that it does.
Vulnerable people can protect themselves by wearing a proper FFP3 mask if they feel it necessary.
That's correct.
Whether exempt, or just not wanting to wear a mask for any reason, people going into crowded places - like some shops and many tube trains - who don't wear a mask are putting some of their fellows at unnecessary additional risk. I
That's not true. Where I work, out of about 850 people, about 5 people choose to wear masks. The suggestion that nearly everyone is putting each other "at risk" is absurd.

have friends with medical vulnerabilities such that, if they were to be exposed to the virus, could be in extreme danger.
Presumably they have been vaccinated? The vaccines work really well even in the most vulnerable groups. However it is true the most vulnerable are not as well protected as everyone else, and therefore they may feel they require additional protection. Rather than demanding other people wear flimsy loose fitting masks which are ineffective, it would make much more sense for vulnerable people to wear highly effective FFP3 masks, if they wish.

While a potentially dangerous version of the virus (as the most common current one is) continues to be so widespread, it's unfair and extremely selfish to put people at unnecessary risk by not wearing a mask - unless one's own reason for not doing so is really serious and unavoidable.
It is not true to suggest that the Delta variant is "dangerous"; in fact the opposite is the case. The virus is evolving in exactly the expected way and the current iteration is extremely contagious and is actually out-competing other, potentially more "dangerous" variants.

It is also untrue to suggest that failing to wear a flimsy loose fitting mask increases the risk of transmission, or that it places people in danger.

I'm as sick of wearing a mask as anyone is, and I look forward to a time - as soon as possible - when the prevalence of the virus, and the danger it poses, are sufficiently reduced that such things as mask-wearing become more or less irrelevant.
For me, mask-wearing is an irrelevance now. I spend most working days encountering hundreds of unmasked people. If someone is vulnerable then it may be a sensible choice for them to wear a highly effective FFP3 mask.


(Though I suspect that, given the slowing of vaccine take-up, that time won't be as soon as I hope.)
The vaccine take-up is far higher than in the US but slower than other countries. This could be due to the poor messaging by those who claim that vaccinated people put others at risk, or that vaccinated people are at risk. The people who make such remarks are deeply irresponsible in my opinion. I find that most of the time people are downplaying the effectiveness of vaccines it is because they have a pro-mask agenda. This is disgraceful and is undermining confidence in our excellent vaccines.

Meanwhile, I accept the mask constraint as a way of putting people I encounter at less risk than if I didn't wear one. I don't understand how someone can not feel guilty about deliberately choosing to put other people at additional risk of serious illness or death.
I cannot understand your logic or feelings; I find your thoughts to be deeply offensive. But you are entitled to those thoughts, and I am entitled to my own view on your thoughts, which is in mutual disagreement.
 
Last edited:

southern442

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
2,186
Location
Surrey
I disagree with almost every word, other than it being off-topic. I suggest we continue the discussion in a more appropriate part of the forum.


What I said to you was not an opinion that I have formulated, it is factual information coming from the medical field. It's not something one can simply agree or disagree with, unless you want to go down a philosophical rabbit hole. I have linked to you two pages from medical organisations explaining in more depth.

No. @trebor79 is right,
There is no real-world evidence of this and such masks are specifically sold on the basis they do not protect the wearer.
I've given some.

This is also incorrect. They do not filter aerosols, which carry virus particles.


This is a scientific paper that suggests otherwise.

"These observations directly demonstrate that wearing of surgical masks or KN95 respirators, even without fit-testing, substantially reduce the number of particles emitted from breathing, talking, and coughing. While the efficacy of cloth and paper masks is not as clear and confounded by shedding of mask fibers, the observations indicate it is likely that they provide some reductions in emitted expiratory particles, in particular the larger particles (> 0.5 μm). We have not directly measured virus emission; nonetheless, our results strongly imply that mask wearing will reduce emission of virus-laden aerosols and droplets associated with expiratory activities, unless appreciable shedding of viable viruses on mask fibers occurs. The majority of the particles emitted were in the aerosol range (< 5 μm). As inertial impaction should increase as particle size increases, it seems likely that the emission reductions observed here provide a lower bound for the reduction of particles in the droplet range (> 5 μm). Our observations are consistent with suggestions that mask wearing can help in mitigating pandemics associated with respiratory disease. Our results highlight the importance of regular changing of disposable masks and washing of homemade masks, and suggests that special care must be taken when removing and cleaning the masks."

No; the other comment is right.
No; the other comment is right.

That is absolutely not true. People who choose not to be vaccinated are putting themselves at risk; that's it.
...
I do not agree that vaccines are increasing transmission but I think that is best discussed in a new thread; I will be happy to provide evidence disagreeing with you if you wish to create one.

Apologes for the misconception, this is not what I was trying to say at all. You are 100% correct here of course. What I WAS trying to say is that vaccines reduce the severity of the disease, which means if you get covid, you're more likely to be asymptomatic. So of course there will be fewer covid cases overall, but of those cases, there will be more cases where people might not realise they have it. That's what I was trying to say.

Do you have real world evidence of this? Either way a flimsy loose fitting mask will not make any difference to transmission.
See above.

This is not true; wearing a flimsy mask does not protect anyone. Vulnerable people are still well protected by the vaccines. However a particularly vulnerable person could choose to wear a highly effective FFP3 mask (as correctly stated by @trebor79) and then it makes no difference what other people do; the wearer is well protected.
See above.

This is untrue; see above. And not everyone is going to wear them, whether you like it or not.
s e e a b o v e


Unfortunately the misconception is on YOU.
 
Last edited:

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
See:

[standard] masks are relatively flimsy and loose-fitting and are not meant to screen out infectious aerosols - tiny virus particles that can linger in the air and are now widely accepted as a source of coronavirus infection.

...cloth masks have gaps which are invisible to the naked eye, but are 5,000 times the size of viral Covid particles....
"Masks can catch droplets and sputum from a cough but what is important is that SARS CoV-2 is predominantly distributed by tiny aerosols."

Dr Axon said that medics were "unable to comprehend" the miniscule elements at play, adding: "A Covid viral particle is around 100 nanometres, material gaps in blue surgical masks are up to 1,000 times that size, cloth mask gaps can be 5,000 times the size."

Dr Axon, whose report on ventilation in supermarkets was used by both Nervtag and Sage to aid decisions, says that medics "cannot have it both ways" over asymptomatic spread.

He added: "Not everyone carrying Covid is coughing, but they are still breathing, those aerosols escape masks and will render the mask ineffective."

What I said to you was not an opinion that I have formulated, it is factual information coming from the medical field. It's not something one can simply agree or disagree with, unless you want to go down a philosophical rabbit hole. I have linked to you two pages from medical organisations explaining in more depth.
I refer you to the facts I have quoted from articles linked above.



I've given some.
No you have not; see my post above relating to the FFP3 vs standard mask trial.

This is a scientific paper that suggests otherwise.
There are scientific papers which disagree with your view too.
No; the other comment is right.
No; I refer you to the links I have provided above.
Apologes for the misconception, this is not what I was trying to say at all. You are 100% correct here of course. What I WAS trying to say is that vaccines reduce the severity of the disease, which means if you get covid, you're more likely to be asymptomatic. So of course there will be fewer covid cases overall, but of those cases, there will be more cases where people might not realise they have it. That's what I was trying to say.
But do you have evidence of this?

I find any comment which undermines the effectiveness of vaccines, whether intentional or not, to be dangerous. I find it interesting but also disturbing that so many pro-mask people are making such comments. I am glad in your case it was accidental.

See above.


See above.


s e e a b o v e
See the articles I linked to above.
Unfortunately the misconception is on YOU.
Rather than repeat this indefinitely, we will have to agree to disagree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top