• Dear Guest, and welcome to RailUK Forums. Our non-railway discussion forums are currently restricted until members have five or more posts, and you will not be able to make a new thread or reply to an existing one in this section until you have made five or more posts elsewhere on the forum.

TfL rules regarding face coverings and travelling round the Kennington loop

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
3,641
Absolutely not. TfL did request the Byelaws were changed but the Government denied their request; TfL have no right to fine anyone.
I don't know how true this is. My understanding is that tfl could set their own bylaws to a large degree .

Internally tfl sent out a recommendation to the mayor that while it was ideal that people continued to wear facemasks on public transport requiring people to wear face masks would put staff at risk of assaults, stifle the recovery of demand and cause confusion where there was interfaces between tfl and other operators services. (Could tfl fine someone for getting off a GwR train at Ealing Broadway or a passenger getting off a national express coach at victoria?)

I believe that by having it in in conditions of carriage and not the bylaws this was a fudge between the mayor's wishes and tfls wishes TfL could also claim that facemasks were required when they were not.

There are also conditions in the bylaws. Where the highest penalty is ejection from the station ( such as having an unfolded bicycle on LU) I do not know if by merely having it in the conditions of carriage it would be grounds to deny travel in of it self. Every other aspect of the conditions of carriage have some element of legal backing in the bylaws.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
18,811
Location
0035
It seems rather than accepting that a significant proportion of customers do not wish to wear face coverings, the Mayor is doubling down on the public who disregard his wishes, and has launched a PR blitz.
 

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
818
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.
This is the offending poster at Pinner Station
It is a complete fantasy that Sadiq wishes were the case but no wonder the customers are confused
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0771[1].JPG
    IMG_0771[1].JPG
    2 MB · Views: 73

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
3,641
This is the offending poster at Pinner Station
It is a complete fantasy that Sadiq wishes were the case but no wonder the customers are confused
Thats the Same poster that would exist when it was a legal requirement to wear a facemask on tfl services. My guess is they never replaced it.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
14,010
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
It seems rather than accepting that a significant proportion of customers do not wish to wear face coverings, the Mayor is doubling down on the public who disregard his wishes, and has launched a PR blitz.

Yes there seem to be a greater presence of enforcement officers these last couple of days. They’re not doing much though - I have get to see them speak to anyone. Perhaps they have realised they are on to a loser with this - I’d say things are marginally past the point where there’s a critical mass of non mask wearers.

One does also have to question whether it’s a good use of taxpayer money having people stood around booking halls, especially when of course people can simply remove their masks once on the train.

TFL are also rather inconsistent on all this. If Khan feels enhanced Covid measures are still required, there still seem to be plenty of staff doing activities where there’s no social distancing measures in place. You don’t have to go far on TFL to see staff with crowds of people round them, for example.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
56,463
Location
Yorkshire
I don't know how true this is. My understanding is that tfl could set their own bylaws to a large degree .#
Nope.

About 7 weeks ago Khan huffed and puffed and failed to achieve this:

Sadiq Khan wants to make not wearing a mask on Tube a criminal offence : CityAM
Refusing to wear a face mask on the Tube should be made into a criminal offence, Sadiq Khan has said.

The mayor of London wants the government to introduce a new bye-law that would enshrine face mask wearing on Transport for London (TfL) in law.
I'm loving the fact his request has been denied; it's absolutely brilliant to see him get so worked up about this.

Internally tfl sent out a recommendation to the mayor that while it was ideal that people continued to wear facemasks on public transport requiring people to wear face masks would put staff at risk of assaults, stifle the recovery of demand and cause confusion where there was interfaces between tfl and other operators services. (Could tfl fine someone for getting off a GwR train at Ealing Broadway or a passenger getting off a national express coach at victoria?)

I believe that by having it in in conditions of carriage and not the bylaws this was a fudge between the mayor's wishes and tfls wishes TfL could also claim that facemasks were required when they were not.
Yes it is a fudge and should never have been done; Khan is incompetent.

There are also conditions in the bylaws. Where the highest penalty is ejection from the station ( such as having an unfolded bicycle on LU) I do not know if by merely having it in the conditions of carriage it would be grounds to deny travel in of it self. Every other aspect of the conditions of carriage have some element of legal backing in the bylaws.
There is no backing for this, and Khan should put up and shut up.
It seems rather than accepting that a significant proportion of customers do not wish to wear face coverings, the Mayor is doubling down on the public who disregard his wishes, and has launched a PR blitz.
He really has a very unhealthy obsession. It's amusing seeing him try, but fail, to achieve this.
This is the offending poster at Pinner Station
They are either retaining out of date posters or are liars. I'd ask them to take it down.

Here are the byelaws:

Made under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962 as amended by section 37 of the Transport Act 1981 and paragraph 2 of Schedule (tfl.gov.uk)

There is no mention of face coverings.
 

southern442

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
2,072
Location
Surrey
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.
First and foremost, I am in no way whatsoever undermining the effectiveness of vaccines. My point was merely about asymptomatic transmission, and why even now it is helpful to act as if you may be infected, rather than to act as if you are not.

See the articles I linked to above.

Rather than repeat this indefinitely, we will have to agree to disagree.
I understand what these articles are saying, however the paper that I have linked disproves this. In particular it says

the observations indicate it is likely that they provide some reductions in emitted expiratory particles

...

our results strongly imply that mask wearing will reduce emission of virus-laden aerosols and droplets associated with expiratory activities

With respect, what your articles have said is someone setting out a scientific argument, which I admit is a logical and well-thought out one. However evidence I have provided has been based off of experiment and observation.

I understand that for many people this is more of an emotional issue than one of logic and facts. Which is fair enough - a pandemic is unprecedented and scary, and these are uncertain times. However I have to wonder why the immediate response of so many when masks are suggested is to immediately claim that they don't work. Indeed I am sure that many had already made up their mind about that, and have since gone looking for information to back their own arguments up.

When the idea was first suggested I was also against it, but after seeing evidence presented to me I decided that it was a jolly good shot at helping our situation, even if only a smallish help. I have since realised that the subconscious reason why myself and so many others were or are against them is because they are a scary symbol that things are different, and that makes the pandemic 'real' for us and we are therefore fearful of them. I do not believe it is an issue of comfort - after all, anti-mask folk still wear clothes and underwear, and presumably suits and ties when necessary. I do believe that people are averse to them on an emotional level, rather than a logical one, and had we been given all of the proper facts and information about what masks actually do a long time ago, rather than leave it to find out for ourselves, then perhaps our emotions would have led us to see that masks are a small piece in the puzzle that leads us to the light at the end of the tunnel, and so more people will have been on board. (apologies for the several unintentional railway puns there)

Either that, or they should've just told people that they are forbidden from wearing them, and we would've seen how quickly the very same opposers would have been wearing them all the time!
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
56,463
Location
Yorkshire
Yes there seem to be a greater presence of enforcement officers these last couple of days. They’re not doing much though - I have get to see them speak to anyone. Perhaps they have realised they are on to a loser with this - I’d say things are marginally past the point where there’s a critical mass of non mask wearers.
I have it on good authority that enforcement officers are absolutely not challenging people for not wearing face coverings.
One does also have to question whether it’s a good use of taxpayer money having people stood around booking halls, especially when of course people can simply remove their masks once on the train.
It is a waste but it's all part of Khan's political posturing campaign and I am sure he sees it as great value.

First and foremost, I am in no way whatsoever undermining the effectiveness of vaccines.
Then why are you banging on about masks, given current vaccination rates are so high?

My point was merely about asymptomatic transmission, and why even now it is helpful to act as if you may be infected, rather than to act as if you are not.
I think we are still waiting for confirmation that there is a lot of asymptomatic transmission; if you are aware of conclusive evidence in this area I'd be interested to hear it. It's not really relevant though in any case, given we know that standard masks are ineffective while vulnerable people can choose to wear highly effective masks if they wish.

I understand what these articles are saying, however the paper that I have linked disproves this. In particular it says
That is not "proof", by your own admission this a theoretical position. Note the use of the words "likely" and "some".

It also fails to address the fact that aerosol particles, which are the really small particles that cause virus transmission to occur, are able to pass through; indeed you could read it as admitting that they pass through as by their own admission if only "some" are "likely" to be removed that means plenty will get through, and these will be the smaller sized particles which result in transmission occurring.

If anything your quote is consistent with what I quoted, certainly not disproving it

With respect, what your articles have said is someone setting out a scientific argument, which I admit is a logical and well-thought out one. However evidence I have provided has been based off of experiment and observation.
With respect, what your articles have said is someone setting out a theoretical argument, which at first glance may sound logical but actually when you look more deeply it isn't. The study I linked to which was mentioned in the BBC article is a real world study and the results in terms of the differences between the actual infection rates are staggering.

I understand that for many people this is more of an emotional issue than one of logic and facts. Which is fair enough - a pandemic is unprecedented and scary, and these are uncertain times. However I have to wonder why the immediate response of so many when masks are suggested is to immediately claim that they don't work.
Standard masks don't work. FFP3 masks clearly do.

Indeed I am sure that many had already made up their mind about that, and have since gone looking for information to back their own arguments up.
Absolutely not true; I've looked for the evidence and the evidence is clear that there is a huge gulf between effective FFP3 masks and ineffective loose fitting masks which have gaps which, though invisible to the naked eye, are absolutely huge compared to the size of aerosol particles, which are the particles that actually cause transmission to occur.

When the idea was first suggested I was also against it, but after seeing evidence presented to me I decided that it was a jolly good shot at helping our situation, even if only a smallish help.
You are clearly being selective in which evidence you are looking at. I do not think you are really reading and understanding the evidence; as I said above, the comment you claimed "disproved" the articles I linked to was actually consistent with what they were saying.

I have since realised that the subconscious reason why myself and so many others were or are against them is because they are a scary symbol that things are different, and that makes the pandemic 'real' for us and we are therefore fearful of them.
For some, yes. For others they encourage people to get closer together, while the messaging is very much arguing against the effectiveness of vaccines. The result is such a huge range of opinions and reactions that it becomes incredibly difficult to model the effect on society.

I had people at work say "I'll put on my mask so I can get closer" so for sure there are some people who masks resulted in less social distancing (back when that was a thing) which is one of the arguments some people put against masks.

I do not believe it is an issue of comfort
It depends on the person.

- after all, anti-mask folk still wear clothes and underwear, and presumably suits and ties when necessary.
False equivalence argument which I won't enter into.

I do believe that people are averse to them on an emotional level, rather than a logical one, and had we been given all of the proper facts and information about what masks actually do a long time ago, rather than leave it to find out for ourselves, then perhaps our emotions would have led us to see that masks are a small piece in the puzzle that leads us to the light at the end of the tunnel, and so more people will have been on board. (apologies for the several unintentional railway puns there)
Meanwhile others are addicted to them on an emotional level. Those who are addicted are a small minority but they are incredibly vocal.

Either that, or they should've just told people that they are forbidden from wearing them, and we would've seen how quickly the very same opposers would have been wearing them all the time!
I think not.
 
Last edited:

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
818
Thats the Same poster that would exist when it was a legal requirement to wear a facemask on tfl services. My guess is they never replaced it.
How very convenient that they would forget to replace a poster that might make Kahn's fantasy a bit more likely to happen
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
3,248
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.
Firstly, people should (and do) cough or sneeze into a tissue or sleeve. Actually (having sneezed whilst wearing a mask and felt everything blast out past my ears) I think a mask would be less effective than the time-honoured methods.

Secondly, this is predicated upon the theory that the primary transmission method is droplets. That is what was thought in the early days. It's since been proven it's aerosol which is the major transmission route. Cloth and surgical type coverings are completely ineffective against aerosols.

Thirdly, any relatively large droplets which cloth and surgical coverings are very effective at catching drop to the floor very quickly, so are not a factor in transmission of the virus.
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.
Nope. Absolutely useless. Think about it. People working with paint spraying equipment and asbestos wouldn't be stupid enough to wear a surgical mask or cloth covering. They use proper FFP3 or better respirators. Virus particles and the aerosol that spreads them are much smaller than paint droplets and asbestos fibres.

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.
No, they don't. Aerosol will pass straight through the mask. And if it's not face-fitted 90% of more of your breath is going to leak round the sides in any case.

Would you be happy to share a room with a smoker, provided they only breathed out through a cloth face covering or surgical mask? No? But why not, smoke particles are much larger than viruses or aerosol, so they'll all be filtered out and you'll be protected fromt he effects of passive smoking right?
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,
Nope. By not wearing a mask I'm more lively to encourage a CEV to either wear a proper FFP3 to properly protect themselves if they are concerned, or stay away from me.

And asymptomatic people are *less* likely to transmit than symptomatic, because they have a lower viral load. It is of course possible, but you've got it the wrong way round.
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.
Nope.

All that is required is for those who wish to reduce their risk of catching COVID to near zero to wear a proper FFP3 mask (and make sure it's fitted properly.

The rest of us wearing random pieces of cloth or fake surgical coverings makes no difference whatsoever.

Please indicate where on this chart the introduction and rescinding of the mask mandate has had an visible effect on case numbers [spoiler: it hasn't, and in fact cases numbers crashed by about 50% immediately following 19th July]
 

southern442

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
2,072
Location
Surrey
I have it on good authority that enforcement officers are absolutely not challenging people for not wearing face coverings.

It is a waste but it's all part of Khan's political posturing campaign and I am sure he sees it as great value.


...That is not "proof", by your own admission this a theoretical position. Note the use of the words "likely" and "some".

It also fails to address the fact that aerosol particles, which are the really small particles that cause virus transmission to occur, are able to pass through; indeed you could read it as admitting that they pass through as by their own admission if only "some" are "likely" to be removed that means plenty will get through, and these will be the smaller sized particles which result in transmission occurring....

The difference here is that there was an experiment conducted in the article I have sent, and the evidence from the experiment has led them to those conclusions. It is standard practice in the scientific world to not be so absolute with one's conclusions. Thus you equally cannot say that they simply 'do not work' because as you say that is not a black and white thing. Even if what you are saying is true that still leaves the fact that undeniably they do *SOME* good, even if not much. Whilst we will agree to disagree there, even if there is some good being done, a very small amount, I would argue that is still an action worth taking. To me, every little helps.

I do not believe that you had not already made up your mind about masks before you had read any information on the subject; but alas this is not something I can prove or disprove. It is my belief that the vast majority of anti-maskers are simply afraid of the pandemic and are still in the 'denial' stage of grief to some extent.

However as you say it is not all bad. Vaccines don't stop transmission entirely, I believe they reduce it though, although I'll admit I haven't looked into vaccines as much, but that is because for me it so much more obvious that getting the jab is the right thing to do, and one should not have to in depth research into this to prove it. What I will say is there are also a lot of anti-maskers who are anti-vaxxers as well, although maybe moreso in the US and other places. These people are much less logical and much more hysterical than any of us, but of course we should still try and convince them to be trusting of it.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
2,054
Location
First Class
First and foremost, I am in no way whatsoever undermining the effectiveness of vaccines. My point was merely about asymptomatic transmission, and why even now it is helpful to act as if you may be infected, rather than to act as if you are not.


I understand what these articles are saying, however the paper that I have linked disproves this. In particular it says



With respect, what your articles have said is someone setting out a scientific argument, which I admit is a logical and well-thought out one. However evidence I have provided has been based off of experiment and observation.

I understand that for many people this is more of an emotional issue than one of logic and facts. Which is fair enough - a pandemic is unprecedented and scary, and these are uncertain times. However I have to wonder why the immediate response of so many when masks are suggested is to immediately claim that they don't work. Indeed I am sure that many had already made up their mind about that, and have since gone looking for information to back their own arguments up.

When the idea was first suggested I was also against it, but after seeing evidence presented to me I decided that it was a jolly good shot at helping our situation, even if only a smallish help. I have since realised that the subconscious reason why myself and so many others were or are against them is because they are a scary symbol that things are different, and that makes the pandemic 'real' for us and we are therefore fearful of them. I do not believe it is an issue of comfort - after all, anti-mask folk still wear clothes and underwear, and presumably suits and ties when necessary. I do believe that people are averse to them on an emotional level, rather than a logical one, and had we been given all of the proper facts and information about what masks actually do a long time ago, rather than leave it to find out for ourselves, then perhaps our emotions would have led us to see that masks are a small piece in the puzzle that leads us to the light at the end of the tunnel, and so more people will have been on board. (apologies for the several unintentional railway puns there)

Either that, or they should've just told people that they are forbidden from wearing them, and we would've seen how quickly the very same opposers would have been wearing them all the time!

Lets think about this logically:
  • If you have symptomatic covid, you really should be isolating and certainly shouldn't be using public transport etc.
  • If you have asymptomatic covid, there is a (not fully quantified) risk of transmission via aerosols, which surgical and cloth masks do little if anything to protect the wearer or those around them against.
  • If you cough or sneeze it's good practice to do so into a handkerchief or tissue which collects large droplets and can then be safely and hygienically washed or disposed of.
  • If you really don't want to take any risks you can wear an FFP3 or equivalent which are highly effective in protecting the wearer.
I honestly can't see any justification for people being expected to wear an item of clinical waste (which is exactly what they are) over their face.

I do actually agree that many people see them as a visual reminder of the abnormality we've been living under for the last 18 months or so. However, I truly believe that this is exactly why they were mandated in the first place, to make people fearful as per the recommendations of the SAGE behavioural science sub-group.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
56,463
Location
Yorkshire
The difference here is that there was an experiment conducted in the article I have sent, and the evidence from the experiment has led them to those conclusions.
But there is no real world study that actually concluded a flimsy standard mask was effective against virus transmission and infections.

I linked to a real world study that actually looked at virus transmission and measured actual infection rates.

It is standard practice in the scientific world to not be so absolute with one's conclusions. Thus you equally cannot say that they simply 'do not work' because as you say that is not a black and white thing.
They are ineffective; that is what I am saying. Look at the study referred to in the BBC article I linked to; infection rates were incredibly high with standard masks but was brought down absolutely massively (by a factor of 47 times) by using effective FFP3 masks. That is massive.

Even if what you are saying is true that still leaves the fact that undeniably they do *SOME* good, even if not much.
That's an opinion, not a fact.

Whilst we will agree to disagree there, even if there is some good being done, a very small amount, I would argue that is still an action worth taking. To me, every little helps.
I disagree. Just because some people have an opinion that mandating flimsy masks might reduce transmission by a small amount is not a justification for the environmental waste, the negative effects on deaf people and those with hidden disabilities, medical conditions and anxieties. It is not justification for denying people the right to travel. It is not justification for fining people. It is not justification for a dystopian society. It is not justification for imposing authoritarianism.

But if you want to wear one, you feel free! You can choose to wear an effective FFP3 mask and be protected, or you could wear a flimsy mask which is just a placebo if it makes you feel good.

I do not believe that you had not already made up your mind about masks before you had read any information on the subject; but alas this is not something I can prove or disprove. It is my belief that the vast majority of anti-maskers are simply afraid of the pandemic and are still in the 'denial' stage of grief to some extent.
When do you think I had made up my mind that FFP3 masks were effective and that flimsy masks were ineffective?

However as you say it is not all bad. Vaccines don't stop transmission entirely, I believe they reduce it though, although I'll admit I haven't looked into vaccines as much, but that is because for me it so much more obvious that getting the jab is the right thing to do, and one should not have to in depth research into this to prove it.
The purpose of a vaccine is not to prevent transmission; the virus is becoming endemic and we will all be exposed to the virus. The question is whether we train our immune system through vaccination or if we go into the battle blind. Masks are a distraction from that.

What I will say is there are also a lot of anti-maskers who are anti-vaxxers as well, although maybe moreso in the US and other places. These people are much less logical and much more hysterical than any of us, but of course we should still try and convince them to be trusting of it.
What I will say is there are also a lot of pro-maskers who are vaccine efficacy deniers. These people are much less logical and much more hysterical than any of us, but of course we should still try and convince them to be trusting of the vaccines, but sadly people like Trish Greenhalgh, Eric Fiegl Ding and co are 'Coronaholics' who will not stop fearmongering. They are, quite frankly, dangerous.
 

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
818
I have it on good authority that enforcement officers are absolutely not challenging people for not wearing face coverings.

It is a waste but it's all part of Khan's political posturing campaign and I am sure he sees it as great value.
What I Like is that fact that
There is one Mayor and there are 400 odd enforcement officers and 5 Million travellers ( or what ever)
The 5 Million Travellers have decided the usage of masks on TFL
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
2,966
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.
There is no way I'm going to sneeze into a mask. If I feel I'm going to sneeze then I would take it off and use a tissue or hanky. I think you are flogging a dead horse. More and more people have stopped being scared of Covid. The same thing happened with Spanish Flu a century ago. There was no vaccine for that. Anyone who is worried should probably avoid going on trains or planes. In much the same way that I would stop cycling if I were seriously worried about being knocked down.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
3,248
It is my belief that the vast majority of anti-maskers are simply afraid of the pandemic and are still in the 'denial' stage of grief to some extent.
Certainly that is not the case with this anti-masker. I really couldn't care less about COVID. The epidemic in the UK is over, bar the little exit wave we are seeing now and it is endemic. I'm vaccinated as are all of my adult family and therefore I and everyone I care about is at minimal risk from COVID.

I don't even know anyone who's had it, except for one new-starter at work who says he had it last year.
Lets think about this logically:
  • If you have symptomatic covid, you really should be isolating and certainly shouldn't be using public transport etc.
  • If you have asymptomatic covid, there is a (not fully quantified) risk of transmission via aerosols, which surgical and cloth masks do little if anything to protect the wearer or those around them against.
  • If you cough or sneeze it's good practice to do so into a handkerchief or tissue which collects large droplets and can then be safely and hygienically washed or disposed of.
  • If you really don't want to take any risks you can wear an FFP3 or equivalent which are highly effective in protecting the wearer.
I honestly can't see any justification for people being expected to wear an item of clinical waste (which is exactly what they are) over their face.
Agree completely.
There is no way I'm going to sneeze into a mask. If I feel I'm going to sneeze then I would take it off and use a tissue or hanky. I think you are flogging a dead horse.
I did it once, accidentally, and it just resulted in phlegm and spit being blasted in all directions over my face and all around me.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
2,966
Certainly that is not the case with this anti-masker. I really couldn't care less about COVID.
I've never been that bothered either. Slightly worried last March although not bothered enough to stop me going out on trains right up to lockdown as I predicted that many trains would park up and possibly never be seen again.

I did it once, accidentally, and it just resulted in phlegm and spit being blasted in all directions over my face and all around me.
Sounds revolting. Loads of people have a cold at the moment. Imagine sneezing a load of snot into a mask. Yuck!
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
2,845
Location
Ely
I've never been that bothered either. Slightly worried last March although not bothered enough to stop me going out on trains right up to lockdown as I predicted that many trains would park up and possibly never be seen again.

I started a 7 day rover on March 22nd 2020 :) - unfortunately I only got to do 2 days of it before Johnson confined us to our homes.

At that point I believed that there was already sufficient evidence that this disease was going to have a risk profile similar to that of flu, but be a bit nastier than the average flu. Which indeed is exactly what it is.

If I'd say been in Wuhan in January 2020, I'd probably have been a bit more concerned, at least until more was known.

Sounds revolting. Loads of people have a cold at the moment.

I've said this a number of times, but I've absolutely no idea why people think wearing a mask is somehow preferable in any way to the rather good advice 'catch it, bin it, kill it'.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
3,248
I've said this a number of times, but I've absolutely no idea why people think wearing a mask is somehow preferable in any way to the rather good advice 'catch it, bin it, kill it'.
Indeed, I think they are disgustingly unhygienic things.

My wife is a bit of a mask enthusiast, in that she will put one on if there's even the merest expectation or encouragement, even though she dislikes them. She's been wearing them for school pick-up and drop off. I went with her this afternoon as I fancied a walk. I didn't put a mask on, and nor did she despite some signs (very soft "We welcome you to wear a mask in the grounds"). Nobody else did either, except for a solitary mum who had a surgical type on, but covering only her mouth - so completely and utterly pointless in every way possible!
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
56,463
Location
Yorkshire
And you should see how kids treat their masks; anyone who thinks it's a good idea to mandate masks in schools should see the terrible reality.

Measuring the effectiveness of a mask mandate should look at real world conditions and the actual effect on infections.

If mask mandates were actually effective, Sweden would be mandating them, and TfL would have been allowed to amend their Byelaws accordingly.
 
Last edited:

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
2,054
Location
First Class
And you should see how kids treat their masks; anyone who thinks it's a good idea to mandate masks in schools should see the terrible reality.

Measuring the effectiveness of a mask mandate should look at real world conditions and the actual effect on infections.

If mask mandates were actually effective, Sweden would be mandating them, and TfL would have been allowed to amend their Byelaws accordingly.

And I dare say the mandate wouldn’t have been lifted in the first place!
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
3,255
I understand that for many people this is more of an emotional issue than one of logic and facts. Which is fair enough - a pandemic is unprecedented and scary, and these are uncertain times.
What do you mean by "uncertain times"?
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
3,033
Location
London
I have it on good authority that enforcement officers are absolutely not challenging people for not wearing face coverings.

To my surprise there were a group of TfL enforcement officers at Liverpool Street last night actively challenging those entering the LU station, calling out “face coverings please”. I wasn’t challenged as I was heading out rather than in. No doubt stating “I’m exempt” would have the desired effect.

Yet another reminder of just how big an idiot we currently have in City Hall…
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
18,811
Location
0035
To my surprise there were a group of TfL enforcement officers at Liverpool Street last night actively challenging those entering the LU station, calling out “face coverings please”. I wasn’t challenged as I was heading out rather than in. No doubt stating “I’m exempt” would have the desired effect.

Yet another reminder of just how big an idiot we currently have in City Hall…
It was a PR exercise. BBC London were there filming: https://twitter.com/bbctomedwards/status/1441368842517692428?s=21
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
2,966
Indeed, I think they are disgustingly unhygienic things.

My wife is a bit of a mask enthusiast, in that she will put one on if there's even the merest expectation or encouragement, even though she dislikes them. She's been wearing them for school pick-up and drop off. I went with her this afternoon as I fancied a walk. I didn't put a mask on, and nor did she despite some signs (very soft "We welcome you to wear a mask in the grounds"). Nobody else did either, except for a solitary mum who had a surgical type on, but covering only her mouth - so completely and utterly pointless in every way possible!
I know some couples at my kids' school where one wears a mask and the other doesn't. Total of two masks seen at drop off this morning. Even the teachers have given up wearing them.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
56,463
Location
Yorkshire
I know some couples at my kids' school where one wears a mask and the other doesn't. Total of two masks seen at drop off this morning. Even the teachers have given up wearing them.
Where I am it's under 1% of kids wearing masks (at secondary school; I am confident it will be 0% at primaries where it was never normalised, thankfully)

It was a PR exercise. BBC London were there filming: https://twitter.com/bbctomedwards/status/1441368842517692428?s=21
Presumably Sadiq Khan, the ultimate virtue signaller, was behind this?
 

james60059

Member
Joined
6 Jul 2006
Messages
765
Location
Hinckley
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?
Just get a green sunflower lanyard. I understand that NO ONE is allowed to question you anyway what your conditions are, as others have mentioned, just saying "I'm exempt" ends the conversation straight away.
 

Top