Great Western Coffee Shop

From the West Somerset Railway's Santa Special page ..


Applause for the bolded part.

I would love to see a similar encouragement for children, and those otherwise who are in an exempt category but never the less could safely wear a mask, to do so.  Noting the number of young people around this half term week, legally not wearing masks though I suspect they could.  Covid doesn't take note of the law ...

For those with exemptions for mental health type issues it should be up to their carer. As GWR and other TOCs make clear some people who are exempt are for not visibly obvious reasons.

That is a different issue from my my comment, though. 

I am suggesting it is good practise to wear a mask if you safely can, even if you fall into one of the exemption categories.    Take a healthy child with an 11th birthday next Tuesday.  On Monday, that child can legally not wear a mask on the bus / train ... but I would suggest that although legally exempt, he/she could do so, and in doing so perhaps play his/her part in helping prevent the spread.  Come Wednesday, there is a requirement to wear the mask anyway and nothing magic happens on a birthday (well, not on mine anyway!).

I agree with the general idea that we should be encouraging mask use where possible regardless of legal exemptions. But I would say there might be reasons not to even where a person can safely do so. For instance, you might be accompanying a deaf person who relies on lip reading.

In the specific case of children, it's going to vary from child to child. Some will have no problem wearing a mask at well under 11, some will find it traumatic even when older.

This sort of discussion concerns me for all manner of reasons. I shall try to be brief and probably fail!

Firstly a general point of principle. If people are ignoring laws or rules, the answer is to enforce the rules you have, not to tighten them still further. There is no logic behind the statement ?people aren?t doing the right thing so we?ll widen the net to catch more people and then they?ll all do the right thing.? That is what a tightening of the rules would result in; those who ignore the rules would carry on doing so and their numbers would probably increase because the rules had been tightened

Secondly I too am concerned about people who don?t play along, either through bloody-mindedness or a failure to think things through. I had an example this very morning on the X34 bus from Chippenham to Semington. There were two people on the single decker as we pulled up at the Rowden Arms stop, me in my usual seat on the nearside at the start of the raised section at the back, and a guy in the rear seat. Two pensioners go on, looking older than me in their 70s, and plonked themselves down in the seat immediately in front of me. They were dutifully wearing masks but they had clearly forgotten all about social distancing.

But going back to the main point, having spent the last 60 years slowly smoking my lungs to death I have the beginnings of COPD. I still wear a mask but, if I am wearing one when walking around a supermarket I often become short of breath. The mask does make it more difficult. I can therefore quite easily see how difficult it would be with a more serious COPD case.

But I don?t look like there?s anything wrong with me. I am also blind in one eye through glaucoma and have about half sight in the other but that doesn?t show either to a passer by. It was BNM on this forum who once said somebody said to him ?You don?t look disabled? to which he replied ?You don?t look like a doctor? In a nutshell, people who are not disabled should not automatically think that everybody else is as fit and healthy as they are because they don?t look unfit or unhealthy. 

The discussion on children wearing masks could be seen as yet another example of people not thinking things through. Working on the basis that you would probably be hard pressed to keep a mask on any toddler that didn?t want it on (they often find plenty of things to have tantrums about anyway without adding masks to the list, and I wouldn?t like to be the jobsworth that told a flustered parent to get their brats mask back on), there is bound to be an age cut-off point, be that 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or whatever. And these milestone also happen to be birthdays that have a day before and after as well. So where is the new line you want drawing because you don?t like the old one?

With regard to children wearing masks, rather than use age why not impose them when they enter secondary school? That has a defined start date. Where first, middle and upper school systems are in place choose one of the progression points.

I do wonder how many people who are exempt from wearing a mask feel safe to use public transport anyway.  Breathing difficulties are likely to put someone straight into the high risk category if they catch the virus while travelling, and it seems odd that someone who doesn't wear a mask for mental health reasons is nevertheless able to cope with the responsibility of possibly passing on the virus to a fellow passenger by not wearing one, and is not worried by the risk of catching it from another passenger.

Somehow I knew I might get some interesting anwers ...
... even if not short.  :D

Which is NOT where I started.  I'm looking at common sense and thoughtfulness, even if the law's net does not include the young people.

I think that's a rhetorical question, Robin ... but my originl post is specific in its use of the term "healthy".  Not looking to address the arguments / discussions on hidden disabilities.

Now there I'm inclined to agree ... for sure, the tiny "brats" can't be masked (or it would not be PC to suggest they should, but I do with parents, grandparents, guardians would think through with social responsibility in mind.  Which does NOT mean that I'm about to suggest anything in person to adults with "control" of a gang of unmasked 9 or 10 year olds running around and not distancing from anyone on a half term trip ...

That would work fine when they're in school. When they're anywhere else, it leads to all sorts of vagueness. What if you're in middle school and visit an area which has primary and secondary? Or an area which has both systems? Or you're at a private school which doesn't follow the general primary-secondary distinction? Or home schooled? Age is arbitrary but can at least be determined.

Happy to oblige  ;D

I?ve now decided I can?t do brief or short; I was no good at pr?cis in school either...

Common sense and adherence to rules are not necessarily bedfellows. Rules might not reflect common sense; government rules often don?t, and this can and does lead to people looking for loopholes, especially thoughtless people.

Take for example the recent incident where The Rules said that dining out with other families was not allowed, but Different Rules said that business meetings were allowed. So then we had people asking if business working lunches were allowed, and getting different answers depending on which restaurateurs were asked.  Now, if these people had employed a bit of common sense and remembered what The Rules were there for in the first place, they may have sussed out for themselves that the whole point was to minimise contact between different family groups to restrict the spread of the virus. Half a dozen people sitting in a meeting room with their cheese sandwiches and talking about sales targets are less likely to infect others in the wider community, or get infected by others from the wider community, if they stay there and do it rather than down the Dog & Duck for an hour.

To me there is a basic truth in that example. If one starts an examination of  a New Rule by thinking about what it has been introduced for in the first place, and acts accordingly, one doesn?t need definitions, one shouldn?t be looking for loopholes and one (well me at least) usually takes more anti-COVID precautions than I?m being told to.

The other problem with over-interpretations of rules is that it encourages people who enjoy minding other peoples? business to feel the need to get involved, anything from a direct challenge to a disapproving snort. If you have rules that say everybody has to wear a mask except the medically exempt, and then compound that by saying even those who are medically exempt should where one if they can, you run the risk of further blurring an already blurred line. 

How can you tell the difference? How do you know whether that that bloke over there who isn?t wearing a mask but who doesn?t look ill, is breaking The Rules or not? You don?t know now and you would know even less then. The propensity of the man in the street to add two and two and get five is boundless.

As regards children wearing masks, there is of course the old saying about there being three ways to get something done. Do it yourself; pay someone else to do it, or forbid your children from doing it. Whatever New Rule for children you will have some children complying and others not, no matter at what stage in their lives you say it has to start.

There are many things in this world that appear, on first sight, to be worthy of a new rule or regulation. Often, when the practicalities and pragmatism are added into the mix they can turn out to be more trouble than they are worth. I am not sure that the proposals made on this thread don?t fall into this category.

It's not always clear what the rules are for, since they try to balance conflicting priorities; in this case, keeping the economy 'open' and reducing people mixing. So we wear masks walking into a cafe or restaurant but then spend most of the time chatting away without them. Add to this that the rules are made in parliament but applied by businesses, schools, bus drivers and so on, all with their own priorities, and it's no wonder there are inconsistencies in application.

When talking in general terms you may be correct; I susoect we have all driven or walked down a road with a 40mph speed limit and wondered what logic lies behind it and why it shouldn?t be a 30 or 50 limit depending on circumstances. As an aside, it always grinds my gears when somebody says ?the rules are there for a reason? as though that was enough. My response is always ?yes but it might not be a very good reason so tell me what it is? But I digress... again...

However, in the case of this pandemic it should be quite obvious to everyone why the rules are there. They are there to limit the spread of the virus. So if you have a situation where rule A and rule B appear to be in conflict, the correct thing to do is to look at the reason for the rule and act according to the spirit of the rule, not its letter.

I can think of plenty of examples where looking for loopholes can be beneficial, for example when it results in paying less tax. I see no logic at all in trying to find loopholes in anti-COVID rules that are there to stop people dying prematurely, especially if I could easily be one of them.

Arguing over definitions and trying to find loopholes in this case results in some people being preoccupied with the rules themselves and not what they are there for. I am reminded of a definition of a zealot that I heard many years ago; someone who redoubles their effort after they?ve forgotten their cause...

I can't understand why the Government hasn't simply made it Law,
"That when you leave home You must at all times wear a mask or full face visor whilst in public areas", allowing masks to be removed when sat at tables in restaurants, pubs. cafes etc.

For those who are unable to wear masks or a face visor due to medical conditions then these are people who shouldn't be leaving home at all.

Out of interest, do people think you should have to wear a mask when riding a bicycle?

I'm going to comment (unhelpfully) that it's not as straightforward as that ... but that comment leads me elsewhere ...

I have been very impressed by the number of people who very clearly have disabilities - often ones that have an extreme visible effect - who are wearing masks.   I have an admiration (not happy with that word, but can find none better) for people who are carrying on with much and obviously stacked against them, and an additional admiration of them for following masking when, I suspect, many of them are legally exempt.   Standing watching / helping passengers for a few hours at a station entrance a couple of times a week, these people have come onto my radar in a way they haven't in the past - and I suspect that's because they're a rail customer group that hasn't collapsed in numbers in the same way as many other groups.

The rules' effectiveness in limiting the spread of the virus is compromised by the need (real or perceived) to keep the economy going and various functions of normal society, such as schools, running. This will lead some people to question the point of following them at all, and others to question the point of the exceptions. That was what I was trying to say, in two sentences.

Incidentally, there's an article here suggesting that the main method of transmission is not droplets but aerosols (the difference being that both are microscopic but droplets are large enough to fall to the ground quickly, aerosols remain airborne). This would mean that indoor settings without ventilation are much more risky than previously thought, regardless of distance from a carrier.

https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-10-28/a-room-a-bar-and-a-class-how-the-coronavirus-is-spread-through-the-air.html

I would rather that we educate and encourage existing users to wear them properly, to take care when adjusting them and to wash them in very hot water frequently  - and to discard them responsibly.

Previously to what? This has been part of the message for months - that's why we've had all the emphasis on ventilation, in trains and elsewhere, not to mention the different rules for meeting  indoors and outdoors. Of course it's been most important in the message for employers and others who control ventilation. The equivalent for homes, schools etc  - open the windows twice an hour to ventilate the room - has been prominent in France, but not here.

And as to "main method" - that depends on where you are and what you are doing. One point is that the fraction of fluid going into aerosol is tiny, so it takes quite a long time to build up an effective dose. In fact, these microscopic droplets are so small that the average number of virus particles in each is well below one.

The bigger droplets fall not just on the floor, but on the person producing them and anything they are close to for a while, building up to heavy contamination. So the size of dose that can be transferred by contact is much bigger - don't dismiss it!  For example, the handle of a shopping trolley is almost the ideal vector, and if someone stands holding onto a grab rail in a train ...

I took this, from the El Pais article, to mean that the risk from touching things was actually very small:

Back in the spring, it was all about contaminated surfaces. Virtually no one was wearing a mask but there was heavy emphasis on hand washing and surface cleaning. When mask rules came in a few months ago, it was still considered that the main infection method was droplets, with limited distance of spread, hence all the emphasis on keeping a certain distance apart.  Distance seems to be less protection against aerosols, as they don't settle but build up in the atmosphere, but ventilation can reduce their concentration (as it can for droplets to an extent, it seems). Considering aerosols not droplets to be the main vector does seem to be a new approach. But is it correct?

In terms of mask wearing, I'm not sure whether the distinction between aerosols and droplets makes much difference.

 Lab tests show there's a massive difference in the effectiveness of the best and worst face masks. (https://news.sky.com/story/amp/coronavirus-three-face-masks-sold-by-major-retailers-rated-a-dont-buy-by-which-12118156?awc=11005_1604082572_82ab681d8be406bcee43b213830e0e9d&dcmp=afc-85386-na-na-longtail&dclid=CM_3pZ_53OwCFQnhuwgdRGUOvw)

Damn. Last week I bought the  "bottom of the table ... Termin8 lightweight breathable face covering" from Boots and thought it the best of several types I've purchased. Not surprisingly, it appears to be a trade-off between breathability and protection. I find even the Termin8 uncomfortable after a few minutes ' use.

In practice, mask wearing is what requires the distinction. There is of course a size continuum, from raindrop-sized down to smaller than a virus. The bigger the droplet, the faster it falls through air, and "aerosol" is applied to ones that are so small they need to be treated as not falling. That depends on context, like why it matters and how still the air is.

Size matters to masks and filters too, and NHS advice and practice is to use FFP3 respirators only for "aerosol-generating procedures" - they are uncomfortable, need to be fit-tested per person and per use, and almost all have a valve so don't filter outwards. Everyone else wears surgical masks (type R2 fluid or splash resistant), with lower filter effectiveness on aerosol droplets. That distinction is based on size alone, rather than fall rate.

Breathing, talking, and even coughing are not reckoned (or haven't been in the past) to produce enough of these smallest "aerosol" particles to worry about. Pushing a tube down a patient's airway to ventilate them is. It takes mechanical energy to tear water (with or without gloopogens) into smaller droplets, and forced airflow through a small gap does that.

Turning that basis into a public health message has had its problems, too. Some scientists have got het up about the lack of emphasis on airborne transmission, but I reckon it's hard to make that into a simple "do this" message. This is all about behaviour modification, and I also wonder if PHPs (public health professionals) started out fighting the last war - trying to persuade us that respiratory viruses like flu can be passed on by contact unless we keep washing our hands. After all, that's a recent idea - relative to the lifetime of an old wife (or me).

In a healthcare setting, medical professionals choose the appropriate type of mask as you say. But the general public are wearing all sorts of things, often with big holes in or worn under the nose, rendering them ineffective.

Good point about fighting the last war, especially given the amount of talk (mostly in media) about the 1918 flu and the 1968 "Hong Kong flu" (which I'd never heard of before). In 1918 the existence of viruses was still disputed and even in 1968 I wonder how many of the public really knew what they were?

I don't think I've seen any explanation of what masks are meant to do in the general population. In medical use, based on barrier nursing, taking PPE off and getting rid of it is as important as wearing it. The PPE is just part of a whole process, relying on prepared facilities and training. That's because (in part anyway) it has to deal with high levels of pathogen contamination, and a wide range of pathogens, so the PPE itself becomes a source of infection and has to be handled suitably.

To start with, as the advisors came from that kind of background, they said use by the general public was as likely to do harm as good. But I think there is a case for it just as an extra barrier, to cope with low levels of virus coming from anyone you meet, and the rarer ones who might be quite ill and spreading a lot of it (but you're not very close and not for long). That RSSB study on Covid-19 risk in trains found and adopted a factor of two reduction in infection risk, though they didn't model infection routes separately. I heard a French government figure of a fourfold reduction of the airborne infection risk, which sound broadly consistent with that. That's not a big factor, given how many virions are being produced and how few can infect you.

The other points about masks are that they are not too hard to use for most activities (with some obvious exceptions), and act as a permanent reminder to be good. I'm not sure what the general understanding of what they do is, though.

I find this a surprising remark.  I have heard many times that the purpose of the general population wearing masks is that it reduces the risk that the wearer will infect other people if they are carrying the virus even if they are asymptomatic.  Or have I missed the point you are making. 

Surely much of the time in barrier nursing the purpose is to protect the wearer. 

My understanding is that wearing the masks is to protect both the wearer and the person near / around them.   No mask layer between people - 100 "units" of infection risk.  One layer and that risk is slashed, though not symetrically.  Two layer and it's slashed again - perhaps to just 1 or 2 units.  All very much affected by how good the masks are and how properly they are worn.

Now ... I see someone smoking, drinking, cycling without a helmet, etc and I think "it is up to them if they want to take the risk" and I am unlikely to have any desire to say anything or want to police them in any way.  With the masks, so much of the protection when I meet a person without a mask is my protection rather than there's that I am more inclined to challenge, or to take steps to lower the risk to myself by removing myself from them.

On Monday, I volunteered at [xxxxx] and on knocking on the door where that was to take place, I was asked by the boss to put on a mask, and did.  Both people already there were masked.   Correct.

On Tuesday, at the same place, the only the organiser (not the boss) was around, and she was maskless. I was fully masked all the time and felt that she really should have been wearing a mask too, even with the boss not around.

This (Saturday) morning, same place again, and with an early lone start to my shift I had no access.  Contractors turned up with keys during my shift, in multiple cars;  I hadn't expected them and put my head around the door because I know there have been security issues - clearly genuine, but clearly all three people not wearing masks and as they were working in the smallest room, certainly not distancing.  When my replacement arrived - a director of the outfit I'm helping - he was masked; I passed over to him out of doors, and left him to carry on.

So - no challenge from me, but a personal caution that I won't be putting myself indoors there again until I'm reasonably sure that the organiser and anyone else who she has around is following the rules that the boss has rightly implemented. To expect others to wear masks, but not to do so yourself if you can, is both a personal risk and shows a disregard, ignorance, thoughlessness or arrogance for the health and lives of those around you.

---

I quote a specific incident above, but it is far from unique.  Coming back from Bath on Wednesday evening, chap gets on the bus ... comes upstairs where I am seated, and as he sits down takes his mask off.  "You're supposed to keep that on right through the journey" say I, more especially as he has sat down opposite me, aisle seat, and is asking me about the previous bus and if I know why it didn't turn up.   "Oh - it's OK - I',m exempt" he says ... "Just put it on while I got on the bus and came past the driver".   Not OK as he proceeded to have an extended discussion about buses ...

Probably not. You'll be in the open air, obviously, and won't be close to anyone for any length of time. The exception would be riding in a group, inna peloton stylee. In that situation it might be sensible. But I don't know if it's really possible to get enough air through a mask for riding hard and the slower you go, the less you're likely to be drafting etc anyway. And the risk would probably be less than, say, a rugby scrum, simply because you're not quite that close. That's my take on it anyway.

I did this the other day. Just couldn't be bothered to take it off when I came out of a shop so rode home with it on, from Whiteladies Road to near Gloucester Road. All fine... until I got to Cotham Hill, which (as you know) as a hill in name only. Here my heavier breathing caused the fabric to be sucked in ? and out ? and in ? and out... I think if it had been a proper hill I would have suffocated, not because the fabric doesn't pass enough air but just because of the 'respiratory diaphragm' effect! Of course it might not have happened if I wasn't so unfit...

With winter here, I, and I am sure a few others, are actually sometimes wearing masks outdoors when it is not a requirement as it helps keep your face warm without needing to remember a scarf.

I'm not sure if that is why, based on my own observations, face covering compliance (everywhere, not just on trains) seems to be higher now that it was after the ruling was introduced?

Yep, I've found mask wearing is beneficial with sinus problems. I don't know if that's actually the reason for the increased wearing or maybe people are just coming round to the view it's what they've got to do?

I certainly wouldn't wear a mask while cycling because, as you said, I've found that the fabric can get into your mouth if breathing heavily. I have seen a few people wearing them, though enough of a rarity to be noteworthy.

Yes, they are good at keeping your face warm, and undoubtedly many are keeping them on because of that, but as someone whose nose runs a lot in cold weather, I find I have to remove mine quite quickly.