-
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!
UK face coverings discussion
- Thread starter Mag_seven
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
778
Member
I think that volunteers in vaccine trials should be excempt from wearing masks. In order to prove that a vaccine works, I would have thought the volunteers would have to try and expose themselves to the virus? Is anyone on this forum taking part in a vaccine trial?
Not wearing a mask isn't likely to expose yourself to the virus, though.
I'm yet to see any evidence that people who do not wear masks (e.g. due to exemptions) are in any way more likely to be infected; no-one can provide to any real-world data showing this.
In reality, the countries that mandate masks the most seem to have the highest surges after such mandates were introduced, e.g. Italy, Spain, France etc. I am not for a moment suggesting that this was caused by masks but I am suggesting the masks failed to have any effect.
The current trials do not involve trying to get infected but there are entirely separate trials due to take place where people do get deliberately infected:
UK plan to be first to run human challenge Covid trials
Volunteers will be deliberately exposed to the virus in trials due to start in January.
www.bbc.co.uk
I'm not aware of anyone doing so on this forum, but I'd say it's best discussed in a separate thread (e.g. https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/signing-up-for-covid-vaccine-trials.206990/ )
I’m ok with wearing the disposable masks be at work (6-12 hr shifts) or outside (shops) but my nose blocking is a mystery!
Even tried with a snood and other masks but it seems to still happen afterwards (blocked nose/headaches and at times trying to breathe normal)
AndyY
Member
Hong Kong, Singapore: No social distancing in markets (outdoors) and supermarkets (indoors), population density (literally not metaphorically) much higher, everyone wearing masks outdoors (no "exemption" nonsense) - result no large outbreak.
You are asking for scientific evidence. I think that whatever can be provided, it will not be enough for you.
If you want to find "evidence" which supports your theory, you will eventually find enough. Similar to the bible bashers who managed to scrape enough evidence from various research papers to "prove" that the universe is <10,000 years old and that the theory evolution is a figment of our imagination.
If only there was some well-established standard of scientific rigour that we could use...
Masks have been mandatory in a wider setting since 24th July, that is four months. And in that whole time this is the best evidence anyone can provide, says a lot.
I don't believe he fully understands what he is saying most of the time, unfortunately. I don't think he's exactly in terribly good health.
We're over 6,000 posts into this now and I rather suspect that we've probably gone over every single facet of this discussion in some detail at this point with everyone having more than enough time to put their views across! As such we're going to draw a line under this thread here for the time being. If there are any developments worthy of note (a change in government policy, some sort of major scientific break through, etc) then please feel free to report this post and we can look at re-opening the thread. In the meantime though thank you all for your contributions and for now we're done here 
VauxhallandI
Established Member
This thread has been kindly re-opened so I could provide an update of my ongoing interaction with my Council.
A quick summary of things so far that have been mentioned in this thread.
My local Tesco had incorrect mask regulation signage up as it did not mention that exemptions can apply.
I complained to Tesco HQ and after a couple of interactions they agreed and stated that they had sent the correct signage (showed me the image) to the store for display. After a couple more weeks of emails as the store had not followed up by changin* the signage I contact the Environmental section of my Council to ask them to intervene- this takes us through the month of October.
Subsequent telephone calls and emails with the department resulted in no action being taken and a denial that according to law they have the wrong signage. This was despite me supplying them with highlighted wording bot in the Statutory wording and the accompanying Guidance notes, also the email admission from Tesco themselves and a copy of the letter of admission that was posted here from Cancer Research (no personal info from that letter was included).
I was therefore left in the position of having to make a formal complaint to the council.
This was the response I received
Well you can imagine the frustration of receiving such a poor response which include more irrelevant information than anything directly evidencing their decision on the point in hand.
Therefore I was left with no option but to go to Complaint stage 2. I specifically asked them to provide the evidence that the Statutory Instrument did not read as I had read it. Whilst I am not a lawyer I read contracts on a regular basis so I am no stranger to legalese.
I received this response on 23rd December:
Whilst it is a relief to finally get to the agreement on the SI there are so many questions left.
When will Tesco do the change of signage? I haven’t been out since the 23rd to check.
What was the Legal thinking and how did it change?
How can the whole department be so wrong and incapable of critical thinking?
Can you imagine the condescension and tone of my interactions with their team. Overall they think you are an idiot and you will just disappear if they ignore, lie or inject enough irrelevant information in to the conversations.
This whole thing took 3 months (if indeed it is over) when it could have taken an hour.
A quick summary of things so far that have been mentioned in this thread.
My local Tesco had incorrect mask regulation signage up as it did not mention that exemptions can apply.
I complained to Tesco HQ and after a couple of interactions they agreed and stated that they had sent the correct signage (showed me the image) to the store for display. After a couple more weeks of emails as the store had not followed up by changin* the signage I contact the Environmental section of my Council to ask them to intervene- this takes us through the month of October.
Subsequent telephone calls and emails with the department resulted in no action being taken and a denial that according to law they have the wrong signage. This was despite me supplying them with highlighted wording bot in the Statutory wording and the accompanying Guidance notes, also the email admission from Tesco themselves and a copy of the letter of admission that was posted here from Cancer Research (no personal info from that letter was included).
I was therefore left in the position of having to make a formal complaint to the council.
This was the response I received
Well you can imagine the frustration of receiving such a poor response which include more irrelevant information than anything directly evidencing their decision on the point in hand.
Therefore I was left with no option but to go to Complaint stage 2. I specifically asked them to provide the evidence that the Statutory Instrument did not read as I had read it. Whilst I am not a lawyer I read contracts on a regular basis so I am no stranger to legalese.
I received this response on 23rd December:
Whilst it is a relief to finally get to the agreement on the SI there are so many questions left.
When will Tesco do the change of signage? I haven’t been out since the 23rd to check.
What was the Legal thinking and how did it change?
How can the whole department be so wrong and incapable of critical thinking?
Can you imagine the condescension and tone of my interactions with their team. Overall they think you are an idiot and you will just disappear if they ignore, lie or inject enough irrelevant information in to the conversations.
This whole thing took 3 months (if indeed it is over) when it could have taken an hour.
Last edited:
Given I was previously employed by a local Council (which will remain nameless) and know what they are like, and given the reputation they have leading to people referring to them as the "Clowncil", I am absolutely not surprised other Councils are similarly incompetent.
I also get the impression some Councils are rather keen on the authoritarianism that now plagues our society, so I am not surprised they chose not to familiarise themselves with these parts of the legislation that don't suit an authoritarian agenda.
I also get the impression some Councils are rather keen on the authoritarianism that now plagues our society, so I am not surprised they chose not to familiarise themselves with these parts of the legislation that don't suit an authoritarian agenda.
VauxhallandI
Established Member
Yes I was going to summarise something around maybe them being hotbeds of inadequacy.
I’m embarrassed as a quasi civil servant myself. If I or a department at my place of work had demonstrated this level of incompetence, well actually I just couldn’t see it happening at all.
It’s of no coincidence that I see the less capable in my area of expertise and those areas I work closely with often ending up a local councils.
think councils are loving this. reound here bunging up signs all over the place. do they really think people dont know whey are supposed to social distance? seeing more petty vandalism of this useless signage.
py_megapixel
Established Member
That's an interesting one actually, because my local Tesco's signage definitely mentions the exemptions, and rightly so. I wonder if it's a regional thing. If you don't mind, could you keep us posted in this thread on whether they do in fact change the signs or not, next time you visit?
But just as important as displaying the correct information on the signage - if not more so - is ensuring that staff are properly aware, and judging by plenty of experiences reported around the web, some aren't... plenty of stories on here of people informing staff that they have an exemption and being discriminated against because they are to provide any form of material proof to that effect, even though some of the exemption criteria have no clear way to prove them! Good on you @VauxhallandI for pursuing this.
I don't actually have anything against masks perse, and as I've said before I probably wouldn't even have an issue with a mandation, if some thought was put into it and I had any level of trust in the current authorities not to abuse it. But the way they're being handled (not literally) in this country is utterly atrocious (like pretty much everything else this government has done, might I add).
Yes, my local council has a standard template sign which all local businesses are displaying; you can walk through the local shopping precinct and the same sign is up several dozen times. I'm not sure I really see the point of it to be honest.
VauxhallandI
Established Member
It should be an eye opener to all the folks who put their trust and therefore their lives in the hands of these people under the misguided perception that they are doing the best/right thing.
brad465
Established Member
On Wednesday I used the train for the first time in a month, and the first time it was really cold, so could see what wearing face coverings (I use a bandana) outside is like. I could easily see the vapour from my breath passing through it, albeit with a slightly different movement in the air perhaps, but it does make me think viral particles must be getting through if they're clinging to vapour particles.
Jamiescott1
Member
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 965
If I sneeze in a face coverings I automatically still put my hand over my mouth outside of my mask and my hand gets wet
Pete_uk
Established Member
As a humorous aside, I saw a American racing driver open his mouth wide and squirt a drink into his mouth forgetting it was covered of course
I couldn't contemplate ever sneezing into a mask. Yuck!
Average_Driver
Member
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 10
Both Tesco and Broxbourne Council have better things to do than pander to your libertarian 'crusade for freedom'
VauxhallandI
Established Member
I beg your pardon.
It’s ok to pick and choose which parts of a law that suits you? I think you’ll find insisting on adherence to the law isn’t libertarian?
I hope we can find a law that affects you we can blanket ignore and see how rude you are then
Last edited:
Totally agree. I take mine off and sneeze into a hanky or tissue.
Without particularly sharing the views of @VauxhallandI, adhering to the law as written would have avoided that diversion of time and energy.
STINT47
Member
A lot of shops and councils have gone over the top with enforcing the laws and regulations.
If your going to pick people up for not following the law in my view its highley hypocritical to not comply with it yourself and a conplaint is justified.
DustyBin
Established Member
This was posted on another forum I use, but the guidance really did change very suddenly didn’t it?
bramling
Veteran Member
Exactly what we’ve been saying on here from the get-go. Try presenting all this logic to the mask obsessives though...
DustyBin
Established Member
When I read that and then look at what happened around the world after mask mandates were introduced, I can’t help but think of scurvy and vitamin C.... Mind you there are numerous aspects to our covid response that make me think the same!
However what that does show is that there's still may be benefit from wearing (non N95) masks for up to 30 minutes at a time, with the timeframe thereafter being to discussion as to how risky it is thereafter (if 0-30 minutes is OK, how much beyond 30 minutes is it before risks outweigh the benefits?).
After 30 minutes your mask won't actually cause you harm from mildew, in that typically it takes about 24 hours from getting wet before surfaces are infected with mildew spores (often cited as a figure of between 24-72 hours). Therefore it's likely that 30 minutes is related to how long before masks are wet enough to be infected with spores.
Even if they were infected with spores at that point (due to being in an area with lots of mildew spores) it's going to take time before they start to grow.
With such a basic misunderstanding on Mildew, either the CDC are giving out poor advice or it may well be that such a document may not actually have come from the CDC (given that it's a photo of a document which could fairly easily be modified before being printed off and photographed as "evidence").
Therefore whilst it's not a good idea to wear masks for long periods of time (and given the data from studies which show a possible minor improvement to risk tend to also be linked to long exposure in high risk areas, and time and high levels of virus are two major factors as to if you're going to be infected and so it's very unlikely that wearing a mask for a long period of time is unlikely to be of much/any use) it doesn't prove that mask wearing for the majority of uses (going to the supermarket, short trips on a bus, etc) wouldn't provide benefit.
However, at I've said before, is going to be hard to show any benefit for such short term use as the level of risk is generally low, so you'd be hard pushed to develop a study to be able to prove that they provide benefit as two major risk factors are likely to be low risk anyway.
Therefore, assuming that the document is from the CDC (and I'd like to see something more than had already been shown) then for most who wear masks for short periods of time then their risk from wearing them is going to be very low but may provide some benefit in providing some reduction in their risk of contracting Covid-19 and so should where suitable continue to wear masks.
For those who should wear masks for longer periods of time I fully agree that the evidence is poor and that you do run the risk that you could start to get other complications which could offset any possible benefits. However even then the studies to date do show that mask wearing is more likely than not to have some limited benefit in high risk long duration settings where there's other sources of the flu (such as from the healthcare workers child) and so unless you're in such a setting then it's probably worth wearing masks.
However I would highlight that any change between wearing/not wearing masks is only going to have a small impact on the growth rate in the number of infections (i.e. if they are doubling every week without masks it may only reduce to x1.99 a week with masks) and so fast climbing numbers of cases isn't evidence either way. As the difference on the increase line between 1024 and 974 over a 10 week period wouldn't look all that different.
DustyBin
Established Member
Whilst I can’t verify the authenticity of the document, it’s consistent with the advice being given at the time by both the CDC and WHO, even as late as March 2020:
WHO stands by recommendation to not wear masks if you are not sick or not caring for someone who is sick | CNN
World Health Organization officials Monday said they still recommend people not wear face masks unless they are sick with Covid-19 or caring for someone who is sick.
On balance I’m inclined to believe it’s an authentic document, possibly not for public consumption?
I think your post provides a balanced view but my concern is that in the real world many people are wearing masks for hours on end then storing them in pockets, handbags and glove compartments and then wearing them again (repeat cycle). I suspect the number of people using masks correctly and safely is actually very small, which then does raise the question of whether mandating their use was/is a good idea.
if one is exempt, one is obeying the law. But having signs in shops (yes, you the COOP) saying you must wear a mask is confusing for everyone. These are big companies with large departments of compliance lawyers. no excuse.
A friend is an ambulance paramedic. He thinks masks in the hands of the general public is not helpful. because people dont do it properly. They need changing once per hour, and do not touch while wearing. Dispose of properly (not dump in a supermarket trolley for the next customer. The reusable ones need a hot wash to kill anything in them.Whilst I can’t verify the authenticity of the document, it’s consistent with the advice being given at the time by both the CDC and WHO, even as late as March 2020:
WHO stands by recommendation to not wear masks if you are not sick or not caring for someone who is sick | CNN
World Health Organization officials Monday said they still recommend people not wear face masks unless they are sick with Covid-19 or caring for someone who is sick.edition.cnn.com
On balance I’m inclined to believe it’s an authentic document, possibly not for public consumption?
I think your post provides a balanced view but my concern is that in the real world many people are wearing masks for hours on end then storing them in pockets, handbags and glove compartments and then wearing them again (repeat cycle). I suspect the number of people using masks correctly and safely is actually very small, which then does raise the question of whether mandating their use was/is a good idea.
bit may of the masks we see being worn are useless.
- Status