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.