Facemasks. Change to attitudes (passengers and staff) on public transport?

[whole diary]

[old original]

It is less confusing to us the travelling public to have a sleight and simple rule of if you travel on public transport you wear a face covering.  It would be very messy and open to interpretation to say if you are x distance from another passenger and if the windows are open

I agree in principle but my major query for both face naskes and 14-day quarantine for arriving international passengers is "why now?" If it is now safer to sit on a bus with a face mask why wasn't safer when 800 people a day were dying of the disease?

I have not for an issue with with wearing a mask as such but, if the real reason is to build public confidence in public transport back up (which would in my mind be a nore logical reason) then why can't we be told? Is Dominoc Cummings afraid that people will take as much notice of the rules as he does if they're told the truth?

Agreed I think it's just too late and now unnecessary.  On the bus today, wearing a mask,  I was 20ft away from the only other person on board, the driver.  For the other few dozen times over the past 12 weeks,  no mask, just don't see the point. As an aside, I was on the bus to collect my new car, so until the pubs open - no more buses!

[Bmblbzzz]

I think I'd put it the other way round. Not "why now?" but "why so late?"

[Electric train]

I think I'd put it the other way round. Not "why now?" but "why so late?"

Although it could be argued the Government were trying to preserve the supplies of disposable masks for the NHS and Care Homes.


Or.


Because the level of infection increased very quickly the science lead to lockdown as the only way to control the infection.


I'm sure any future enquiry and historians will draw conclusions

[IndustryInsider]

Also, in the vast majority of bus, tram and train journeys since late March, social distancing has been easy - on the trains, often its been a case of having a carriage to yourself.

Now the passenger numbers are rising, albeit slowly, that starts to become more difficult.  I would suggest mandatory face coverings makes it easier to justify reducing the 2m rule to 1m.

Most of the decisions taken can be argued either way.

[IndustryInsider]

Out and about today, I’d estimate around 20% of passengers and 5% of staff are wearing masks. I can’t see a massive shift by Monday somehow.

The change in the law has made quite a difference.

On my travels today, I reckon 80-90% of passengers were complying with the law and wearing a mask/face covering, and the number of staff complying with GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) policy (as set out earlier in the thread) was pretty much 100%.

[Sixty3Closure]

The change in the law has made quite a difference.

On my travels today, I reckon 80-90% of passengers were complying with the law and wearing a mask/face covering, and the number of staff complying with GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) policy (as set out earlier in the thread) was pretty much 100%.

I've just had a very unexpected stay in hospital where face masks are supposed to be compulsory but its not legally enforceable. While many of the doctors were sceptical (if we were having masks then should have been back in March) the general thought was why public transport had a legal change but hospitals didn't as there were far more vulnerable people in the latter.

Probably about 60% take up by the public but near 100% by staff.

[broadgage]

A pedant would note, why is a facemask not required for an employee behind a glass or Perspex screen, but by inference IS required behind a screen made from some other brand of transparent acrylic ?
Is Perspex so much safer than alternative brands of very similar products.
And what about polycarbonate ? which IS safer if attack by yobs is feared, but is the same as other cheaper materials for infection control.

[CyclingSid]

More pedantry. I thought Perspex was a trade name of ICI, which has not existed for many years. Or should it be lower case as ijn hoover the vacuum cleaner, as opposed to upper case for the company?

[didcotdean]

Perspex International attempt to cling on to the trademark by always using Perspex® in their own literature, but it is a battle lost in the court of public usage I think, in the same way that Petrol® was by the 1930s. Although there are other generic terms such as plexiglass.

[stuving]

Perspex International attempt to cling on to the trademark by always using Perspex® in their own literature, but it is a battle lost in the court of public usage I think, in the same way that Petrol® was by the 1930s. Although there are other generic terms such as plexiglass.

I'd noticed "plexiglass" being used a bit more here recently, rather than the usual "perspex", and assumed it was down to ignorance (of the established British name now become generic in usage). However, it might be due to being more careful about trademarks these days. I'd always thought Plexiglass was also registered, in the USA, but despite it being used (as Plexiglass®) by several US suppliers of the stuff, that ought to be Plexiglas®. Exactly who invented, made, and sold what and registered its name first (in Germany, Britain, or the USA) appears to be disputed.

[ellendune]

Perspex International attempt to cling on to the trademark by always using Perspex® in their own literature, but it is a battle lost in the court of public usage I think, in the same way that Petrol® was by the 1930s. Although there are other generic terms such as plexiglass.

I'd noticed "plexiglass" being used a bit more here recently, rather than the usual "perspex", and assumed it was down to ignorance (of the established British name now become generic in usage). However, it might be due to being more careful about trademarks these days. I'd always thought Plexiglass was also registered, in the USA, but despite it being used (as Plexiglass®) by several US suppliers of the stuff, that ought to be Plexiglas®. Exactly who invented, made, and sold what and registered its name first (in Germany, Britain, or the USA) appears to be disputed.

Chemically it is Poly(methyl methacrylate)  or PMMA.  Perspex and Plexiglas are just two of several trade names. 

[Phil]

Genuine question, and not one intended to stir up any racial controversy or whatever. A few years ago when the term "face coverings" was generally used to convey the hijab, burka or niqab, there were "burka bans" in place in certain situations. I'm not sure whether it was enforced here (in banks, for example?) but I do distinctly remember reading that in Holland there was a specific law passed banning face coverings on public transport.

Now that wearing a face covering is being openingly encouraged, is any distinction being made over what form that face covering should be? If I were to walk onto a train wearing a black balaclava and carrying a bag marked "swag," for example, would the staff merely smile and nod and say well done for following the rules?

[Bmblbzzz]

NL and FR had, presumably have, such laws, and maybe a couple of other countries, but not UK^▸ (United Kingdom). But certainly it raises social/legal/cultural questions about types of face coverings, attitudes to them and reasons for these attitudes. Being encouraged to cover our faces with a bandanna especially!

[Bmblbzzz]

Anyway, I'm going to hoover my perspex before xeroxing some documents to put in my filofax. Then I'm going to google that story about smuggling heroin in a petrol tank, and as it's a hot day I'll drink a glass of coke.

[grahame]

Now that wearing a face covering is being openingly encouraged, is any distinction being made over what form that face covering should be? If I were to walk onto a train wearing a black balaclava and carrying a bag marked "swag," for example, would the staff merely smile and nod and say well done for following the rules?

It's only when talking with people with their mouths covered that I realise just how much I rely on lipreading these days, and I know I get visual indicators from people's facial expressions too.   Gets harder the less indicators there are, and that must apply to staff too.

If you really are carrying a bag marked "Swag" is an excellent pointer towards a sense of humour in spite of the current big issues and I suspect they would smile at you (even if you could not see the smile) and say 'well done'.   Without a bag marked "swag" it might be a different scenario.

I'm noting that in 10 days this thread had run up to about 60 posts ... hot topic!