That's clear then

[Recliner]

From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...

From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>

Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our
platforms, Emirates Air Line terminals and river piers and on our bus,
tram, train, Emirates Air Line and Dial-a-Ride services.

...so that's going to be interesting on Monday when National Rail services
no longer require the use of face coverings but TfL services do, as part of
the conditions of carriage.

For example...
• ...at Rickmansworth, which is outside London but owned by TfL so you'll
have to wear a face covering even if you're waiting for a Chiltern service,
but you can take it off once you step aboard.
• ...at Upminster, which is not owned by TfL so you won't need a face
covering to enter the station but you will need to put on it if you step
onto on a District line train or Overground service.
• ...at Finsbury Park which is not owned by TfL (so you're not "in our
stations"), but has tube platforms underground where you will have to wear
one (because you'll be "on our platforms").
• ...at Farringdon, which is operated by TfL but has separate Thameslink
platforms where you definitely should/shouldn't wear a face covering, it's
not clear.

You can probably think of other awkward regulatory interfaces...

[M***@48uw5crj_kpklfqwt4.gov]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 08:31:00 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our

Good luck with them enforcing that, the BTP won't be helping as its no longer
law. I'll be travelling on the tube on monday and I have no intention of
wearing any face nappy (not that I did previously anyway).

[Recliner]

Post by M***@48uw5crj_kpklfqwt4.gov
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 08:31:00 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our

Good luck with them enforcing that, the BTP won't be helping as its no longer
law. I'll be travelling on the tube on monday and I have no intention of
wearing any face nappy (not that I did previously anyway).

I gather that the mask rule will be implemented in the same way as the
no-drinking rule. Do the BTP help enforce that?

Of course, mask wearing wasn't really enforced anyway, even before the rule
change.

[M***@rrslai39z05xph8fzs8.co.uk]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 09:03:55 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner

Post by M***@48uw5crj_kpklfqwt4.gov
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 08:31:00 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our

Good luck with them enforcing that, the BTP won't be helping as its no longer
law. I'll be travelling on the tube on monday and I have no intention of
wearing any face nappy (not that I did previously anyway).

I gather that the mask rule will be implemented in the same way as the
no-drinking rule. Do the BTP help enforce that?

Never seen them do so though I rarely saw them on the tube full stop. Maybe
once a month at most. Rules of Carraige AFAIK are civil law, not criminal law
so there's no requirement for the police to enforce them unless someone is
causing trouble and/or giving the staff grief. However if you just politely
tell a member of staff that no, you're going to wear a mask, I don't see
there's anything the BTP can legally do.

Post by Recliner
Of course, mask wearing wasn't really enforced anyway, even before the rule
change.

True.

[Roland Perry]

Post by M***@rrslai39z05xph8fzs8.co.uk
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 09:03:55 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner

Post by M***@48uw5crj_kpklfqwt4.gov
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 08:31:00 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our

Good luck with them enforcing that, the BTP won't be helping as its no longer
law. I'll be travelling on the tube on monday and I have no intention of
wearing any face nappy (not that I did previously anyway).

I gather that the mask rule will be implemented in the same way as the
no-drinking rule. Do the BTP help enforce that?

Never seen them do so though I rarely saw them on the tube full stop. Maybe
once a month at most. Rules of Carraige AFAIK are civil law, not criminal law
so there's no requirement for the police to enforce them unless someone is
causing trouble and/or giving the staff grief. However if you just politely
tell a member of staff that no, you're going to wear a mask, I don't see
there's anything the BTP can legally do.

They could arrest you for fare evasion, because if you aren't wearing a
mask your ticket isn't valid.

Post by M***@rrslai39z05xph8fzs8.co.uk

Post by Recliner
Of course, mask wearing wasn't really enforced anyway, even before the rule
change.

True.

[M***@7ubfvoy316aa1eq4hf0m.gov.uk]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:09:13 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@rrslai39z05xph8fzs8.co.uk
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 09:03:55 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner

Post by M***@48uw5crj_kpklfqwt4.gov
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 08:31:00 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London

are

Post by M***@rrslai39z05xph8fzs8.co.uk

Post by Recliner

Post by M***@48uw5crj_kpklfqwt4.gov

Post by Recliner
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our

Good luck with them enforcing that, the BTP won't be helping as its no longer
law. I'll be travelling on the tube on monday and I have no intention of
wearing any face nappy (not that I did previously anyway).

I gather that the mask rule will be implemented in the same way as the
no-drinking rule. Do the BTP help enforce that?

Never seen them do so though I rarely saw them on the tube full stop. Maybe
once a month at most. Rules of Carraige AFAIK are civil law, not criminal law
so there's no requirement for the police to enforce them unless someone is
causing trouble and/or giving the staff grief. However if you just politely
tell a member of staff that no, you're going to wear a mask, I don't see
there's anything the BTP can legally do.

They could arrest you for fare evasion, because if you aren't wearing a
mask your ticket isn't valid.

An Oyster card isn't a ticket - if you've paid the valid fare then you've paid
it, you cannot be done for fare evasion and no court would uphold that
charge.

[Roland Perry]

Post by M***@7ubfvoy316aa1eq4hf0m.gov.uk
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:09:13 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@rrslai39z05xph8fzs8.co.uk
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 09:03:55 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner

Post by M***@48uw5crj_kpklfqwt4.gov
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 08:31:00 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London

are

Post by M***@rrslai39z05xph8fzs8.co.uk

Post by Recliner

Post by M***@48uw5crj_kpklfqwt4.gov

Post by Recliner
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our

Good luck with them enforcing that, the BTP won't be helping as its no longer
law. I'll be travelling on the tube on monday and I have no intention of
wearing any face nappy (not that I did previously anyway).

I gather that the mask rule will be implemented in the same way as the
no-drinking rule. Do the BTP help enforce that?

Never seen them do so though I rarely saw them on the tube full stop. Maybe
once a month at most. Rules of Carraige AFAIK are civil law, not criminal law
so there's no requirement for the police to enforce them unless someone is
causing trouble and/or giving the staff grief. However if you just politely
tell a member of staff that no, you're going to wear a mask, I don't see
there's anything the BTP can legally do.

They could arrest you for fare evasion, because if you aren't wearing a
mask your ticket isn't valid.

An Oyster card isn't a ticket - if you've paid the valid fare then you've paid
it,

You think it's OK to drink alcohol on TfL if you've paid by Oyster?

Post by M***@7ubfvoy316aa1eq4hf0m.gov.uk
you cannot be done for fare evasion and no court would uphold that
charge.

You paid for a ticket you've invalidated by not wearing a mask. Hard
luck.

[M***@g16fnlq7.net]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:56:36 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@7ubfvoy316aa1eq4hf0m.gov.uk

Post by Roland Perry
They could arrest you for fare evasion, because if you aren't wearing a
mask your ticket isn't valid.

An Oyster card isn't a ticket - if you've paid the valid fare then you've paid
it,

You think it's OK to drink alcohol on TfL if you've paid by Oyster?

No, but you can't be done for fare evasion. All that can happen is TfL can
ask you to leave or sue you, there are no legal penalties.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@7ubfvoy316aa1eq4hf0m.gov.uk
you cannot be done for fare evasion and no court would uphold that
charge.

You paid for a ticket you've invalidated by not wearing a mask. Hard
luck.

Doesn't work like that.

[Roland Perry]

Post by M***@g16fnlq7.net
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:56:36 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@7ubfvoy316aa1eq4hf0m.gov.uk

Post by Roland Perry
They could arrest you for fare evasion, because if you aren't wearing a
mask your ticket isn't valid.

An Oyster card isn't a ticket - if you've paid the valid fare then you've paid
it,

You think it's OK to drink alcohol on TfL if you've paid by Oyster?

No, but you can't be done for fare evasion.

Of course you can.

Post by M***@g16fnlq7.net
All that can happen is TfL can
ask you to leave or sue you, there are no legal penalties.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@7ubfvoy316aa1eq4hf0m.gov.uk
you cannot be done for fare evasion and no court would uphold that
charge.

You paid for a ticket you've invalidated by not wearing a mask. Hard
luck.

Doesn't work like that.

Actually, it does.

[M***@za7mt297exso4.info]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 13:49:06 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@g16fnlq7.net
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:56:36 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@7ubfvoy316aa1eq4hf0m.gov.uk

Post by Roland Perry
They could arrest you for fare evasion, because if you aren't wearing a
mask your ticket isn't valid.

An Oyster card isn't a ticket - if you've paid the valid fare then you've paid
it,

You think it's OK to drink alcohol on TfL if you've paid by Oyster?

No, but you can't be done for fare evasion.

Of course you can.

No, you can't. You can be thrown off the property but you can't be done for
fare evasion precisely because you've paid the fare. Conditions of carraige
allow them to refuse you carraige at any point in the journey and boot you
out, it doesn't mean they can take you to court for non payment.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@g16fnlq7.net
Doesn't work like that.

Actually, it does.

No, it really doesn't.

[Roland Perry]

Post by M***@za7mt297exso4.info
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 13:49:06 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@g16fnlq7.net
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:56:36 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@7ubfvoy316aa1eq4hf0m.gov.uk

Post by Roland Perry
They could arrest you for fare evasion, because if you aren't wearing a
mask your ticket isn't valid.

An Oyster card isn't a ticket - if you've paid the valid fare then you've paid
it,

You think it's OK to drink alcohol on TfL if you've paid by Oyster?

No, but you can't be done for fare evasion.

Of course you can.

No, you can't. You can be thrown off the property but you can't be done for
fare evasion precisely because you've paid the fare. Conditions of carraige
allow them to refuse you carraige at any point in the journey and boot you
out, it doesn't mean they can take you to court for non payment.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@g16fnlq7.net
Doesn't work like that.

Actually, it does.

No, it really doesn't.

In the face of your implacable denial of the facts, there's really no
point in continuing this pantomime.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@za7mt297exso4.info
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 13:49:06 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@g16fnlq7.net
Doesn't work like that.

Actually, it does.

No, it really doesn't.

In the face of your implacable denial of the facts, there's really no
point in continuing this pantomime.

Mr Potato Head's raison d'etre is to implacably deny the facts.

Mark

[M***@7o0l52xo5hju52.info]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 17:58:55 +0100

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@za7mt297exso4.info
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 13:49:06 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@g16fnlq7.net
Doesn't work like that.

Actually, it does.

No, it really doesn't.

In the face of your implacable denial of the facts, there's really no
point in continuing this pantomime.

Mr Potato Head's raison d'etre is to implacably deny the facts.

"The defendant is here for fare evasion your honour"
"So he didn't pay the fare?"
"Err, well he did actually"
"Case dismissed"

I hate to break the news to you lot but to charge someone with an offence
they have to have committed that offence in the first place. Being thrown
off PT for breaking the conditions of carraige might be AN offence (civil)
but IT IS NOT fare evastion and you lot can argue the toss as long as you
like, it doesn't change the law.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by M***@za7mt297exso4.info
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 13:49:06 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@g16fnlq7.net
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:56:36 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@7ubfvoy316aa1eq4hf0m.gov.uk

Post by Roland Perry
They could arrest you for fare evasion, because if you aren't wearing a
mask your ticket isn't valid.

An Oyster card isn't a ticket - if you've paid the valid fare then you've paid
it,

You think it's OK to drink alcohol on TfL if you've paid by Oyster?

No, but you can't be done for fare evasion.

Of course you can.

No, you can't. You can be thrown off the property but you can't be done for
fare evasion precisely because you've paid the fare. Conditions of carraige
allow them to refuse you carraige at any point in the journey and boot you
out, it doesn't mean they can take you to court for non payment.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@g16fnlq7.net
Doesn't work like that.

Actually, it does.

No, it really doesn't.

If you're already contravening the contract for 'conditions of
carriage', is there any reason why they can't simply throw you off, and
thus avoid any legal ramifications by refunding your fare?

[tim...]

Post by M***@za7mt297exso4.info
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 13:49:06 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@g16fnlq7.net
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:56:36 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@7ubfvoy316aa1eq4hf0m.gov.uk

Post by Roland Perry
They could arrest you for fare evasion, because if you aren't wearing a
mask your ticket isn't valid.

An Oyster card isn't a ticket - if you've paid the valid fare then you've paid
it,

You think it's OK to drink alcohol on TfL if you've paid by Oyster?

No, but you can't be done for fare evasion.

Of course you can.

No, you can't. You can be thrown off the property but you can't be done for
fare evasion precisely because you've paid the fare. Conditions of carraige
allow them to refuse you carraige at any point in the journey and boot you
out, it doesn't mean they can take you to court for non payment.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@g16fnlq7.net
Doesn't work like that.

Actually, it does.

No, it really doesn't.

If you're already contravening the contract for 'conditions of carriage',
is there any reason why they can't simply throw you off, and thus avoid
any legal ramifications by refunding your fare?

unless you have a "designated train" ticket type, surely you'd just get back
on the next one

[Tweed]

Post by tim...

Post by M***@za7mt297exso4.info
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 13:49:06 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@g16fnlq7.net
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:56:36 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@7ubfvoy316aa1eq4hf0m.gov.uk

Post by Roland Perry
They could arrest you for fare evasion, because if you aren't wearing a
mask your ticket isn't valid.

An Oyster card isn't a ticket - if you've paid the valid fare then you've paid
it,

You think it's OK to drink alcohol on TfL if you've paid by Oyster?

No, but you can't be done for fare evasion.

Of course you can.

No, you can't. You can be thrown off the property but you can't be done for
fare evasion precisely because you've paid the fare. Conditions of carraige
allow them to refuse you carraige at any point in the journey and boot you
out, it doesn't mean they can take you to court for non payment.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@g16fnlq7.net
Doesn't work like that.

Actually, it does.

No, it really doesn't.

If you're already contravening the contract for 'conditions of carriage',
is there any reason why they can't simply throw you off, and thus avoid
any legal ramifications by refunding your fare?

unless you have a "designated train" ticket type, surely you'd just get back
on the next one

It’s never going to happen, but I wonder if TfL’s decision on mask wearing
would be open to challenge by judicial review? A challenger could present
the argument that the “face coverings” mandated do not protect others. As
far as I’m aware TfL’s stance is not backed by primary legislation.

[Robin]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@7ubfvoy316aa1eq4hf0m.gov.uk
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:09:13 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@rrslai39z05xph8fzs8.co.uk
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 09:03:55 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner

Post by M***@48uw5crj_kpklfqwt4.gov
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 08:31:00 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London

are

Post by M***@rrslai39z05xph8fzs8.co.uk

Post by Recliner

Post by M***@48uw5crj_kpklfqwt4.gov

Post by Recliner
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our

Good luck with them enforcing that, the BTP won't be helping as its no longer
law. I'll be travelling on the tube on monday and I have no intention of
wearing any face nappy (not that I did previously anyway).

I gather that the mask rule will be implemented in the same way as the
no-drinking rule. Do the BTP help enforce that?

Never seen them do so though I rarely saw them on the tube full stop. Maybe
once a month at most. Rules of Carraige AFAIK are civil law, not criminal law
so there's no requirement for the police to enforce them unless someone is
causing trouble and/or giving the staff grief. However if you just politely
tell a member of staff that no, you're going to wear a mask, I don't see
there's anything the BTP can legally do.

They could arrest you for fare evasion, because if you aren't wearing a
mask your ticket isn't valid.

An Oyster card isn't a ticket - if you've paid the valid fare then you've paid
it,

You think it's OK to drink alcohol on TfL if you've paid by Oyster?

Post by M***@7ubfvoy316aa1eq4hf0m.gov.uk
you cannot be done for fare evasion and no court would uphold that
charge.

You paid for a ticket you've invalidated by not wearing a mask. Hard luck.

TfL required face coverings by means of a notice issued in June 2020
under byelaw 12(1) of the byelaws. The notice and the byelaws say
nothing about a breach invalidating a ticket. They don't need to. A
breach is an offence in its own right which can be prosecuted. And
byelaw 24 provides the right to remove the person.

[Blueshirt]

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry
You paid for a ticket you've invalidated by not wearing a mask. Hard luck.

TfL required face coverings by means of a notice issued in June 2020
under byelaw 12(1) of the byelaws.  The notice and the byelaws say
nothing about a breach invalidating a ticket.  They don't need to.  A
breach is an offence in its own right which can be prosecuted.  And
byelaw 24 provides the right to remove the person.

Regardless of the above discussion and the relevant bye-laws, I do not
think we will see any people removed from their journey on the London
Underground solely because they are not wearing a face mask. I suspect
they will be advised, very politely, by staff/BTP to wear one the next
time they travel. (People who say "Fuck You" to being asked that might
be removed though!)

[M***@y7cin.gov]

On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 01:09:36 +0100

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 09:09:17 +0000 (UTC),

Post by M***@rrslai39z05xph8fzs8.co.uk
so there's no requirement for the police to enforce them unless someone is
causing trouble and/or giving the staff grief. However if you just politely
tell a member of staff that no, you're

not ?

Post by M***@rrslai39z05xph8fzs8.co.uk
going to wear a mask, I don't see
there's anything the BTP can legally do.

They treat you as a trespasser as you are not present within the terms
of the applicable [legal not paper] licence.
See also Byelaws Nos.
5. Unfit to be on the railway
6. Unacceptable behaviour
12. Safety Instructions
13. Unauthorised access and loitering
24. Enforcement

Sure, they're byelaws, and none of them are fare evasion. BUt the chances of
Roland ever admitting he's wrong are next to nothing so there' little point
arguing this any further.

[Charles Ellson]

Post by M***@y7cin.gov
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 01:09:36 +0100

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 09:09:17 +0000 (UTC),

Post by M***@rrslai39z05xph8fzs8.co.uk
so there's no requirement for the police to enforce them unless someone is
causing trouble and/or giving the staff grief. However if you just politely
tell a member of staff that no, you're

not ?

Post by M***@rrslai39z05xph8fzs8.co.uk
going to wear a mask, I don't see
there's anything the BTP can legally do.

They treat you as a trespasser as you are not present within the terms
of the applicable [legal not paper] licence.
See also Byelaws Nos.
5. Unfit to be on the railway
6. Unacceptable behaviour
12. Safety Instructions
13. Unauthorised access and loitering
24. Enforcement

Sure, they're byelaws, and none of them are fare evasion. BUt the chances of
Roland ever admitting he's wrong are next to nothing so there' little point
arguing this any further.

I will admit that according to Charles I wrongly interpreted what the
mayor said earlier in the week that the mask thing would be implemented
by conditions of carriage (not byelaws).
He did say they were "new", and the previous restriction was CoC - so
logically it could easily be a new byelaw.

The CoCs and Byelaws to a great extent support each other (along with
various railway statutes and regulations) with some cross-referencing.
Face coverings are in para. 2.4 of the 7 Jun 2021 TfL CoCs.
https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-conditions-of-carriage.pdf
along with the threat of removal/prosecution/FPNs. Saying the
enforcement is via CoCs would not seem to be wrong as breaches of para
2.4 can lead to action via the aforementioned byelaws.

[m***@round-midnight.org.uk]

Post by Recliner

Post by M***@48uw5crj_kpklfqwt4.gov
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 08:31:00 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our

Good luck with them enforcing that, the BTP won't be helping as its no longer
law. I'll be travelling on the tube on monday and I have no intention of
wearing any face nappy (not that I did previously anyway).

I gather that the mask rule will be implemented in the same way as the
no-drinking rule. Do the BTP help enforce that?
Of course, mask wearing wasn't really enforced anyway, even before the rule
change. >

But BTP will assist railway operatives enforcing the conditions of
carriage. Even the over-zealous ones.

I saw XC operatives on one of their services walking through the train
without masks. Worse still another of their operatives physically
barged through a number of people held up on the bridge at Bristol
Parkway railway station who where social distancing. There was no need
for him to do that as the next XC service was not due for about 15 minutes.

I'm just grateful I don't live in Johnson's England or go there very often.

[M***@ku6d.info]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 10:40:13 +0100

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by M***@48uw5crj_kpklfqwt4.gov
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 08:31:00 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London

are

Post by Recliner

Post by M***@48uw5crj_kpklfqwt4.gov

Post by Recliner
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our

Good luck with them enforcing that, the BTP won't be helping as its no

longer

Post by Recliner

Post by M***@48uw5crj_kpklfqwt4.gov
law. I'll be travelling on the tube on monday and I have no intention of
wearing any face nappy (not that I did previously anyway).

I gather that the mask rule will be implemented in the same way as the
no-drinking rule. Do the BTP help enforce that?
Of course, mask wearing wasn't really enforced anyway, even before the rule
change. >

But BTP will assist railway operatives enforcing the conditions of
carriage. Even the over-zealous ones.

I wouldn't bet on that. They'll enforce fare evasion because thats classed as
theft but anything else is a civil issue.

Post by Recliner
I saw XC operatives on one of their services walking through the train
without masks.

Oh no! Did have to hide under a seat and have councelling after?

[M***@2m19dbndsdl9e.biz]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 15:21:49 +0100

Post by M***@ku6d.info
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 10:40:13 +0100

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
But BTP will assist railway operatives enforcing the conditions of
carriage. Even the over-zealous ones.

I wouldn't bet on that. They'll enforce fare evasion because thats classed as
theft but anything else is a civil issue.

They assist railway operatives removing passengers from trains and
stations even for civil matters.

Unless the passenger is causing trouble or being threatening they have no
legal basis in which do to that. For the same reason police can't just go
and round up trespassers or squatters (unfortunately) unless its a private home.

[Charles Ellson]

Post by M***@ku6d.info
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 10:40:13 +0100

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by M***@48uw5crj_kpklfqwt4.gov
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 08:31:00 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London

are

Post by Recliner

Post by M***@48uw5crj_kpklfqwt4.gov

Post by Recliner
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our

Good luck with them enforcing that, the BTP won't be helping as its no

longer

Post by Recliner

Post by M***@48uw5crj_kpklfqwt4.gov
law. I'll be travelling on the tube on monday and I have no intention of
wearing any face nappy (not that I did previously anyway).

I gather that the mask rule will be implemented in the same way as the
no-drinking rule. Do the BTP help enforce that?
Of course, mask wearing wasn't really enforced anyway, even before the rule
change. >

But BTP will assist railway operatives enforcing the conditions of
carriage. Even the over-zealous ones.

I wouldn't bet on that. They'll enforce fare evasion because thats classed as
theft but anything else is a civil issue.

It isn't theft, it is fare evasion. A fare evader has not
"appropriated property" (s.1 Theft Act 1968).

Post by M***@ku6d.info

Post by Recliner
I saw XC operatives on one of their services walking through the train
without masks.

Oh no! Did have to hide under a seat and have councelling after?

[M***@_ow49h0m69q.net]

On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 01:44:20 +0100

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by M***@ku6d.info
theft but anything else is a civil issue.

It isn't theft, it is fare evasion. A fare evader has not
"appropriated property" (s.1 Theft Act 1968).

Tell that to the people who've been done for theft of electricity or other
services.

[Tweed]

Post by M***@_ow49h0m69q.net
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 01:44:20 +0100

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by M***@ku6d.info
theft but anything else is a civil issue.

It isn't theft, it is fare evasion. A fare evader has not
"appropriated property" (s.1 Theft Act 1968).

Tell that to the people who've been done for theft of electricity or other
services.

It’s section 13 of the Theft Act, but the offence is Abstracting
Electricity. It’s the same logic as section 12, taking a motor vehicle, ie
what we’d call joy riding. Both sections are needed as it’s not theft in
the legally defined sense.

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 01:44:20 +0100, Charles Ellson

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by M***@ku6d.info
I wouldn't bet on that. They'll enforce fare evasion because thats classed as
theft but anything else is a civil issue.

It isn't theft, it is fare evasion. A fare evader has not
"appropriated property" (s.1 Theft Act 1968).

Correct, and it's nice to see someone appreciating the distinction
between naughty things that are theft and naughty things which are not
theft![1]

However, fare evasion is still an offence, in this case under section 5
of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. Yes, it really is that old.

[1] That's an in-joke which will only be appreciated by regulars on a
different newsgroup, sorry!

Mark

[Charles Ellson]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 01:44:20 +0100, Charles Ellson

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by M***@ku6d.info
I wouldn't bet on that. They'll enforce fare evasion because thats classed as
theft but anything else is a civil issue.

It isn't theft, it is fare evasion. A fare evader has not
"appropriated property" (s.1 Theft Act 1968).

Correct, and it's nice to see someone appreciating the distinction
between naughty things that are theft and naughty things which are not
theft![1]
However, fare evasion is still an offence, in this case under section 5
of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. Yes, it really is that old.

But that still doesn't prove that having bought a valid ticket,
contravening a "use of the railway" regulation, such as putting your feet on
the seats or drinking alcohol, invalidates your ticket and that the railway
can prosecute you for fare evasion.
Even with something directly fare related, such as travelling on a train for
which your ticket is not actually valid (but on the correct route), has long
been recognised by grippers as an offence that they cannot escalate to
criminal fare evasion, and *have* to remedy via a civil penalty fare.

Some of the behaviours are arguably breaches of contract. A breach of
contract (a civil matter) can invalidate your ticket (which can
develop into a criminal matter). In practice the usual "penalty" is
likely to be getting chucked out by the constabulary for making the
place untidy.

[MB]

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
I'm just grateful I don't live in Johnson's England or go there very often.

It is the same BTP and Plod Scotland do not have a reputation for being
subtle though they might busy at he moment with their investigation into
the SNP finances!

[M***@6alquwwk0spzfk3jk.gov]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 20:27:27 +0100 (GMT+01:00)

Post by M***@48uw5crj_kpklfqwt4.gov
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 08:31:00 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our

Good luck with them enforcing that, the BTP won't be helping as its no longer
law. I'll be travelling on the tube on monday and I have no intention of
wearing any face nappy (not that I did previously anyway).

That's a pity, a face nappy would be appropriate attire for such a
big baby.

ITYF the big babies are the ones wearing their masks where the current chance
of dying with covid for someone who's vacinnated is in the noise.

[NY]

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our
platforms, Emirates Air Line terminals and river piers and on our bus,
tram, train, Emirates Air Line and Dial-a-Ride services.
...so that's going to be interesting on Monday when National Rail services
no longer require the use of face coverings but TfL services do, as part of
the conditions of carriage.
For example...
• ...at Rickmansworth, which is outside London but owned by TfL so you'll
have to wear a face covering even if you're waiting for a Chiltern service,
but you can take it off once you step aboard.
• ...at Upminster, which is not owned by TfL so you won't need a face
covering to enter the station but you will need to put on it if you step
onto on a District line train or Overground service.
• ...at Finsbury Park which is not owned by TfL (so you're not "in our
stations"), but has tube platforms underground where you will have to wear
one (because you'll be "on our platforms").
• ...at Farringdon, which is operated by TfL but has separate Thameslink
platforms where you definitely should/shouldn't wear a face covering, it's
not clear.

There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place. It's no longer mandatory to wear a mask in many places, but
nor is it mandatory *not* to wear one - it's up to personal choice and I
choose to carry on wearing one for the time being.

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things being
used each day.

So use washable ones rather than disposable ones, then.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[M***@wh5pvi5zda5i2do4dls.tv]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 10:29:39 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things

being

used each day.

So use washable ones rather than disposable ones, then.

Tell that to the billions who don't.

[tim...]

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things being
used each day.

So use washable ones rather than disposable ones, then.

do people really use the disposable ones "once" as it says on the packet
(even if we loosely define once as for one day)?

After almost 18 months, I'm on my third one now

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by tim...

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things being
used each day.

So use washable ones rather than disposable ones, then.

do people really use the disposable ones "once" as it says on the packet
(even if we loosely define once as for one day)?
After almost 18 months, I'm on my third one now

On the rare occasions that I use a disposable mask, I wear it for a day
then bin it. Usually I wear re-usable ones, again for a day and then they
get washed.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[Roland Perry]

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by tim...
do people really use the disposable ones "once" as it says on the packet
(even if we loosely define once as for one day)?
After almost 18 months, I'm on my third one now

On the rare occasions that I use a disposable mask, I wear it for a day
then bin it. Usually I wear re-usable ones, again for a day and then they
get washed.

The re-use thing is only important if the mask wearing is to protect the
wearer, not the rest of the population.

As people don't seem to be able to get their collective head around the
difference, discussion is futile.

[tim...]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by tim...
do people really use the disposable ones "once" as it says on the packet
(even if we loosely define once as for one day)?
After almost 18 months, I'm on my third one now

On the rare occasions that I use a disposable mask, I wear it for a day
then bin it. Usually I wear re-usable ones, again for a day and then they
get washed.

The re-use thing is only important if the mask wearing is to protect the
wearer, not the rest of the population.
As people don't seem to be able to get their collective head around the
difference, discussion is futile.

Tbf something that's been in hot, moist breath for more than a short
period
of time is going to get pretty disgusting if you re-use it over multiple
days without either changing or washing it.

I think this depends upon how much of the day you are using it.

if you the guard on a train say, and you are walking through the carriages
all day wearing it, it's going to be a lot more use than my wearing it for
10 minutes on the bus to the shops and then 15-20 minutes walking around the
shop and 10 minutes back, none of which is particularly strenuous.

But the "rules" suggest that I should throw it out after such a use, which I
personally thick is daft.

Most people change their
underwear and socks every day, I think, so why wouldn't you wear a new
mask
ever day, if you've worn it for more than a few minutes?

I don't change my socks after a few minutes use

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by tim...

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by tim...
do people really use the disposable ones "once" as it says on the packet
(even if we loosely define once as for one day)?
After almost 18 months, I'm on my third one now

On the rare occasions that I use a disposable mask, I wear it for a day
then bin it. Usually I wear re-usable ones, again for a day and then they
get washed.

The re-use thing is only important if the mask wearing is to protect the
wearer, not the rest of the population.
As people don't seem to be able to get their collective head around the
difference, discussion is futile.

Tbf something that's been in hot, moist breath for more than a short
period
of time is going to get pretty disgusting if you re-use it over multiple
days without either changing or washing it.

I think this depends upon how much of the day you are using it.
if you the guard on a train say, and you are walking through the carriages
all day wearing it, it's going to be a lot more use than my wearing it for
10 minutes on the bus to the shops and then 15-20 minutes walking around the
shop and 10 minutes back, none of which is particularly strenuous.

Breathing right into it for 40 minutes is more than just 'a few minutes'
I'd suggest; unless it gets chance to dry out it'll presumably be at risk
of beginning to go mouldy, if nothing else!

Post by tim...
But the "rules" suggest that I should throw it out after such a use, which I
personally thick is daft.

Most people change their
underwear and socks every day, I think, so why wouldn't you wear a new
mask
ever day, if you've worn it for more than a few minutes?

I don't change my socks after a few minutes use

So if you only wear them for 40 minutes in a day, how many days use do you
get out of a pair?


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[Roland Perry]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by tim...
do people really use the disposable ones "once" as it says on the packet
(even if we loosely define once as for one day)?
After almost 18 months, I'm on my third one now

On the rare occasions that I use a disposable mask, I wear it for a day
then bin it. Usually I wear re-usable ones, again for a day and then they
get washed.

The re-use thing is only important if the mask wearing is to protect the
wearer, not the rest of the population.
As people don't seem to be able to get their collective head around the
difference, discussion is futile.

Tbf something that's been in hot, moist breath for more than a short period
of time is going to get pretty disgusting if you re-use it over multiple
days without either changing or washing it. Most people change their
underwear and socks every day, I think, so why wouldn't you wear a new mask
ever day, if you've worn it for more than a few minutes?

That's an important "if". Even the longest shopping sessions I do are
only half an hour.

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by tim...
do people really use the disposable ones "once" as it says on the packet
(even if we loosely define once as for one day)?
After almost 18 months, I'm on my third one now

On the rare occasions that I use a disposable mask, I wear it for a day
then bin it. Usually I wear re-usable ones, again for a day and then they
get washed.

The re-use thing is only important if the mask wearing is to protect the
wearer, not the rest of the population.
As people don't seem to be able to get their collective head around the
difference, discussion is futile.

Tbf something that's been in hot, moist breath for more than a short period
of time is going to get pretty disgusting if you re-use it over multiple
days without either changing or washing it. Most people change their
underwear and socks every day, I think, so why wouldn't you wear a new mask
ever day, if you've worn it for more than a few minutes?

That's an important "if". Even the longest shopping sessions I do are
only half an hour.

If that shopping trip was the only part of the day for which you wore
socks, would you wear a fresh pair every day?


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[tim...]

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by tim...
do people really use the disposable ones "once" as it says on the packet
(even if we loosely define once as for one day)?
After almost 18 months, I'm on my third one now

On the rare occasions that I use a disposable mask, I wear it for a day
then bin it. Usually I wear re-usable ones, again for a day and then they
get washed.

The re-use thing is only important if the mask wearing is to protect the
wearer, not the rest of the population.
As people don't seem to be able to get their collective head around the
difference, discussion is futile.

Tbf something that's been in hot, moist breath for more than a short period
of time is going to get pretty disgusting if you re-use it over multiple
days without either changing or washing it. Most people change their
underwear and socks every day, I think, so why wouldn't you wear a new mask
ever day, if you've worn it for more than a few minutes?

That's an important "if". Even the longest shopping sessions I do are
only half an hour.

If that shopping trip was the only part of the day for which you wore
socks, would you wear a fresh pair every day?

No, of course not

what point are you trying to prove

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by tim...

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by tim...
do people really use the disposable ones "once" as it says on the packet
(even if we loosely define once as for one day)?
After almost 18 months, I'm on my third one now

On the rare occasions that I use a disposable mask, I wear it for a day
then bin it. Usually I wear re-usable ones, again for a day and then they
get washed.

The re-use thing is only important if the mask wearing is to protect the
wearer, not the rest of the population.
As people don't seem to be able to get their collective head around the
difference, discussion is futile.

Tbf something that's been in hot, moist breath for more than a short period
of time is going to get pretty disgusting if you re-use it over multiple
days without either changing or washing it. Most people change their
underwear and socks every day, I think, so why wouldn't you wear a new mask
ever day, if you've worn it for more than a few minutes?

That's an important "if". Even the longest shopping sessions I do are
only half an hour.

If that shopping trip was the only part of the day for which you wore
socks, would you wear a fresh pair every day?

No, of course not
what point are you trying to prove

Curious; I'm in the habit of not wearing socks around the house, so if my
only trip out is a quick shopping trip, it's entirely possible that I'll
wear socks only for that period of time. But I don't then place then
carefully aside for re-use, or back in the sock drawer, they go in the
washing basket…


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[tim...]

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by tim...

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by tim...
do people really use the disposable ones "once" as it says on the packet
(even if we loosely define once as for one day)?
After almost 18 months, I'm on my third one now

On the rare occasions that I use a disposable mask, I wear it for a day
then bin it. Usually I wear re-usable ones, again for a day and then they
get washed.

The re-use thing is only important if the mask wearing is to protect the
wearer, not the rest of the population.
As people don't seem to be able to get their collective head around the
difference, discussion is futile.

Tbf something that's been in hot, moist breath for more than a short period
of time is going to get pretty disgusting if you re-use it over multiple
days without either changing or washing it. Most people change their
underwear and socks every day, I think, so why wouldn't you wear a new mask
ever day, if you've worn it for more than a few minutes?

That's an important "if". Even the longest shopping sessions I do are
only half an hour.

If that shopping trip was the only part of the day for which you wore
socks, would you wear a fresh pair every day?

No, of course not
what point are you trying to prove

Curious; I'm in the habit of not wearing socks around the house, so if my
only trip out is a quick shopping trip, it's entirely possible that I'll
wear socks only for that period of time. But I don't then place then
carefully aside for re-use, or back in the sock drawer, they go in the
washing basket…

Seems hugely unnecessary (and wasteful) IMHO

[Roland Perry]

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by tim...
do people really use the disposable ones "once" as it says on the packet
(even if we loosely define once as for one day)?
After almost 18 months, I'm on my third one now

On the rare occasions that I use a disposable mask, I wear it for a day
then bin it. Usually I wear re-usable ones, again for a day and then they
get washed.

The re-use thing is only important if the mask wearing is to protect the
wearer, not the rest of the population.
As people don't seem to be able to get their collective head around the
difference, discussion is futile.

Tbf something that's been in hot, moist breath for more than a short period
of time is going to get pretty disgusting if you re-use it over multiple
days without either changing or washing it. Most people change their
underwear and socks every day, I think, so why wouldn't you wear a new mask
ever day, if you've worn it for more than a few minutes?

That's an important "if". Even the longest shopping sessions I do are
only half an hour.

If that shopping trip was the only part of the day for which you wore
socks, would you wear a fresh pair every day?

I wear socks all day usually - they double as slippers (or what the
Americans call "house shoes"). Only take them off it they get wet (from
the rain getting inside not sufficiently waterproof outdoor shoes).

[tim...]

Post by NY

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our
platforms, Emirates Air Line terminals and river piers and on our bus,
tram, train, Emirates Air Line and Dial-a-Ride services.
...so that's going to be interesting on Monday when National Rail services
no longer require the use of face coverings but TfL services do, as part of
the conditions of carriage.
For example...
• ...at Rickmansworth, which is outside London but owned by TfL so you'll
have to wear a face covering even if you're waiting for a Chiltern service,
but you can take it off once you step aboard.
• ...at Upminster, which is not owned by TfL so you won't need a face
covering to enter the station but you will need to put on it if you step
onto on a District line train or Overground service.
• ...at Finsbury Park which is not owned by TfL (so you're not "in our
stations"), but has tube platforms underground where you will have to wear
one (because you'll be "on our platforms").
• ...at Farringdon, which is operated by TfL but has separate Thameslink
platforms where you definitely should/shouldn't wear a face covering, it's
not clear.

There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place. It's no longer mandatory to wear a mask in many places, but
nor is it mandatory *not* to wear one - it's up to personal choice and I
choose to carry on wearing one for the time being.

there speaks a man who obviously doesn't wear glasses

[Recliner]

Post by tim...

Post by NY

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our
platforms, Emirates Air Line terminals and river piers and on our bus,
tram, train, Emirates Air Line and Dial-a-Ride services.
...so that's going to be interesting on Monday when National Rail services
no longer require the use of face coverings but TfL services do, as part of
the conditions of carriage.
For example...
• ...at Rickmansworth, which is outside London but owned by TfL so you'll
have to wear a face covering even if you're waiting for a Chiltern service,
but you can take it off once you step aboard.
• ...at Upminster, which is not owned by TfL so you won't need a face
covering to enter the station but you will need to put on it if you step
onto on a District line train or Overground service.
• ...at Finsbury Park which is not owned by TfL (so you're not "in our
stations"), but has tube platforms underground where you will have to wear
one (because you'll be "on our platforms").
• ...at Farringdon, which is operated by TfL but has separate Thameslink
platforms where you definitely should/shouldn't wear a face covering, it's
not clear.

There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place. It's no longer mandatory to wear a mask in many places, but
nor is it mandatory *not* to wear one - it's up to personal choice and I
choose to carry on wearing one for the time being.

there speaks a man who obviously doesn't wear glasses

And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards, making it
more likely to be breathed in by others. So the masks actually help spread
the Covid aerosol.

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by NY

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our
platforms, Emirates Air Line terminals and river piers and on our bus,
tram, train, Emirates Air Line and Dial-a-Ride services.
...so that's going to be interesting on Monday when National Rail services
no longer require the use of face coverings but TfL services do, as part of
the conditions of carriage.
For example...
• ...at Rickmansworth, which is outside London but owned by TfL so you'll
have to wear a face covering even if you're waiting for a Chiltern service,
but you can take it off once you step aboard.
• ...at Upminster, which is not owned by TfL so you won't need a face
covering to enter the station but you will need to put on it if you step
onto on a District line train or Overground service.
• ...at Finsbury Park which is not owned by TfL (so you're not "in our
stations"), but has tube platforms underground where you will have to wear
one (because you'll be "on our platforms").
• ...at Farringdon, which is operated by TfL but has separate Thameslink
platforms where you definitely should/shouldn't wear a face covering, it's
not clear.

There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place. It's no longer mandatory to wear a mask in many places, but
nor is it mandatory *not* to wear one - it's up to personal choice and I
choose to carry on wearing one for the time being.

there speaks a man who obviously doesn't wear glasses

And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards, making it
more likely to be breathed in by others. So the masks actually help spread
the Covid aerosol.

Surely, though, it's at a much lower velocity and not straight (FSVO)
outwards towards other people; also the change in direction is likely to
catch droplets etc in the mask.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[Recliner]

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by NY

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our
platforms, Emirates Air Line terminals and river piers and on our bus,
tram, train, Emirates Air Line and Dial-a-Ride services.
...so that's going to be interesting on Monday when National Rail services
no longer require the use of face coverings but TfL services do, as part of
the conditions of carriage.
For example...
• ...at Rickmansworth, which is outside London but owned by TfL so you'll
have to wear a face covering even if you're waiting for a Chiltern service,
but you can take it off once you step aboard.
• ...at Upminster, which is not owned by TfL so you won't need a face
covering to enter the station but you will need to put on it if you step
onto on a District line train or Overground service.
• ...at Finsbury Park which is not owned by TfL (so you're not "in our
stations"), but has tube platforms underground where you will have to wear
one (because you'll be "on our platforms").
• ...at Farringdon, which is operated by TfL but has separate Thameslink
platforms where you definitely should/shouldn't wear a face covering, it's
not clear.

There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place. It's no longer mandatory to wear a mask in many places, but
nor is it mandatory *not* to wear one - it's up to personal choice and I
choose to carry on wearing one for the time being.

there speaks a man who obviously doesn't wear glasses

And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards, making it
more likely to be breathed in by others. So the masks actually help spread
the Covid aerosol.

Surely, though, it's at a much lower velocity and not straight (FSVO)
outwards towards other people; also the change in direction is likely to
catch droplets etc in the mask.

Aerosol transmission is now known to be the main route to infection, and
directing the exhaled air upwards and outwards will probably spread it
further. The virus particles can remain active for several hours in
stagnant air indoors (much less in sunlight).

The flimsy masks do divert some droplets, but droplets from the nose
wouldn't get far anyway. There's also the risk that porous masks simply
converts larger droplets into smaller ones that travel further and hang
around longer.

Where masks could help is if wearers are shouting, singing or coughing, and
hence likely to spray lots of droplets a longer distance. But I wonder if
people engaging in such activities actually wear masks?

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by Recliner

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by NY

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our
platforms, Emirates Air Line terminals and river piers and on our bus,
tram, train, Emirates Air Line and Dial-a-Ride services.
...so that's going to be interesting on Monday when National Rail services
no longer require the use of face coverings but TfL services do, as part of
the conditions of carriage.
For example...
• ...at Rickmansworth, which is outside London but owned by TfL so you'll
have to wear a face covering even if you're waiting for a Chiltern service,
but you can take it off once you step aboard.
• ...at Upminster, which is not owned by TfL so you won't need a face
covering to enter the station but you will need to put on it if you step
onto on a District line train or Overground service.
• ...at Finsbury Park which is not owned by TfL (so you're not "in our
stations"), but has tube platforms underground where you will have to wear
one (because you'll be "on our platforms").
• ...at Farringdon, which is operated by TfL but has separate Thameslink
platforms where you definitely should/shouldn't wear a face covering, it's
not clear.

There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place. It's no longer mandatory to wear a mask in many places, but
nor is it mandatory *not* to wear one - it's up to personal choice and I
choose to carry on wearing one for the time being.

there speaks a man who obviously doesn't wear glasses

And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards, making it
more likely to be breathed in by others. So the masks actually help spread
the Covid aerosol.

Surely, though, it's at a much lower velocity and not straight (FSVO)
outwards towards other people; also the change in direction is likely to
catch droplets etc in the mask.

Aerosol transmission is now known to be the main route to infection, and
directing the exhaled air upwards and outwards will probably spread it
further. The virus particles can remain active for several hours in
stagnant air indoors (much less in sunlight).
The flimsy masks do divert some droplets, but droplets from the nose
wouldn't get far anyway. There's also the risk that porous masks simply
converts larger droplets into smaller ones that travel further and hang
around longer.

Not everyone breathes through their nose all the time, and also people
talk, which exhales air further than nose-breathing, at a guess.

Post by Recliner
Where masks could help is if wearers are shouting, singing or coughing, and
hence likely to spray lots of droplets a longer distance. But I wonder if
people engaging in such activities actually wear masks?

[Recliner]

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Recliner

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by NY

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our
platforms, Emirates Air Line terminals and river piers and on our bus,
tram, train, Emirates Air Line and Dial-a-Ride services.
...so that's going to be interesting on Monday when National Rail services
no longer require the use of face coverings but TfL services do, as part of
the conditions of carriage.
For example...
• ...at Rickmansworth, which is outside London but owned by TfL so you'll
have to wear a face covering even if you're waiting for a Chiltern service,
but you can take it off once you step aboard.
• ...at Upminster, which is not owned by TfL so you won't need a face
covering to enter the station but you will need to put on it if you step
onto on a District line train or Overground service.
• ...at Finsbury Park which is not owned by TfL (so you're not "in our
stations"), but has tube platforms underground where you will have to wear
one (because you'll be "on our platforms").
• ...at Farringdon, which is operated by TfL but has separate Thameslink
platforms where you definitely should/shouldn't wear a face covering, it's
not clear.

There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place. It's no longer mandatory to wear a mask in many places, but
nor is it mandatory *not* to wear one - it's up to personal choice and I
choose to carry on wearing one for the time being.

there speaks a man who obviously doesn't wear glasses

And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards, making it
more likely to be breathed in by others. So the masks actually help spread
the Covid aerosol.

Surely, though, it's at a much lower velocity and not straight (FSVO)
outwards towards other people; also the change in direction is likely to
catch droplets etc in the mask.

Aerosol transmission is now known to be the main route to infection, and
directing the exhaled air upwards and outwards will probably spread it
further. The virus particles can remain active for several hours in
stagnant air indoors (much less in sunlight).
The flimsy masks do divert some droplets, but droplets from the nose
wouldn't get far anyway. There's also the risk that porous masks simply
converts larger droplets into smaller ones that travel further and hang
around longer.

Not everyone breathes through their nose all the time, and also people
talk, which exhales air further than nose-breathing, at a guess.

Yes, but I've noticed many people engaged in a conversation (including on a
phone) take their masks off.

[Tweed]

Post by Recliner

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Recliner

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by NY

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our
platforms, Emirates Air Line terminals and river piers and on our bus,
tram, train, Emirates Air Line and Dial-a-Ride services.
...so that's going to be interesting on Monday when National Rail services
no longer require the use of face coverings but TfL services do, as part of
the conditions of carriage.
For example...
• ...at Rickmansworth, which is outside London but owned by TfL so you'll
have to wear a face covering even if you're waiting for a Chiltern service,
but you can take it off once you step aboard.
• ...at Upminster, which is not owned by TfL so you won't need a face
covering to enter the station but you will need to put on it if you step
onto on a District line train or Overground service.
• ...at Finsbury Park which is not owned by TfL (so you're not "in our
stations"), but has tube platforms underground where you will have to wear
one (because you'll be "on our platforms").
• ...at Farringdon, which is operated by TfL but has separate Thameslink
platforms where you definitely should/shouldn't wear a face covering, it's
not clear.

There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place. It's no longer mandatory to wear a mask in many places, but
nor is it mandatory *not* to wear one - it's up to personal choice and I
choose to carry on wearing one for the time being.

there speaks a man who obviously doesn't wear glasses

And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards, making it
more likely to be breathed in by others. So the masks actually help spread
the Covid aerosol.

Surely, though, it's at a much lower velocity and not straight (FSVO)
outwards towards other people; also the change in direction is likely to
catch droplets etc in the mask.

Aerosol transmission is now known to be the main route to infection, and
directing the exhaled air upwards and outwards will probably spread it
further. The virus particles can remain active for several hours in
stagnant air indoors (much less in sunlight).
The flimsy masks do divert some droplets, but droplets from the nose
wouldn't get far anyway. There's also the risk that porous masks simply
converts larger droplets into smaller ones that travel further and hang
around longer.

Not everyone breathes through their nose all the time, and also people
talk, which exhales air further than nose-breathing, at a guess.

Yes, but I've noticed many people engaged in a conversation (including on a
phone) take their masks off.

I’m still at a loss as to why FFP3 masks are not more widespread. The
recent results from a hospital (Cambridge?) show how effective they are.
They also protect *you* - so,if you have worries go out and buy some.
There’s all these immuno suppressed folk who make regular appearances in
the media moaning on. Presumably as they have a weak immune system they are
also prone to catching other bugs. Why don’t their medics prescribe them
FFP3 masks? There seems to be some strange delight in signalling that you
are helping others by wearing a mask. *if* you believe masks are important
why not use a proper one that helps you quite significantly? Germany hands
them out to their elderly population.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Tweed
I’m still at a loss as to why FFP3 masks are not more widespread. The
recent results from a hospital (Cambridge?) show how effective they are.

Agree 100%

Post by Tweed
They also protect *you* - so,if you have worries go out and buy some.

They were not encouraged in Spring 2020, because there was a worldwide
shortage of PPE and hence a desire to "reserve" them for front-line
medical staff. Over a year later, and no-one seems to have bothered to
review that.

[Recliner]

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by NY

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our
platforms, Emirates Air Line terminals and river piers and on our bus,
tram, train, Emirates Air Line and Dial-a-Ride services.
...so that's going to be interesting on Monday when National Rail services
no longer require the use of face coverings but TfL services do, as part of
the conditions of carriage.
For example...
• ...at Rickmansworth, which is outside London but owned by TfL so you'll
have to wear a face covering even if you're waiting for a Chiltern service,
but you can take it off once you step aboard.
• ...at Upminster, which is not owned by TfL so you won't need a face
covering to enter the station but you will need to put on it if you step
onto on a District line train or Overground service.
• ...at Finsbury Park which is not owned by TfL (so you're not "in our
stations"), but has tube platforms underground where you will have to wear
one (because you'll be "on our platforms").
• ...at Farringdon, which is operated by TfL but has separate Thameslink
platforms where you definitely should/shouldn't wear a face covering, it's
not clear.

There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place. It's no longer mandatory to wear a mask in many places, but
nor is it mandatory *not* to wear one - it's up to personal choice and I
choose to carry on wearing one for the time being.

there speaks a man who obviously doesn't wear glasses

And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards,

Only if you are wearing the "wrong kind of mask". But I suppose lots of
people do.

Hardly anyone wears professionally fitted FFP3 medical grade masks whose
tightl seal to the face is tested.

<https://www.nhsggc.org.uk/media/236642/1e1100-arco-qualitative-face-fit-test-equipment.pdf>

And forget it if you aren't clean shaven.

Post by Recliner
making it more likely to be breathed in by others. So the masks
actually help spread the Covid aerosol.

Although the mask initiative was really only intended to stop people
coughing and sneezing directly upon others, rather than not-breathing on
them.

Yes, because it wasn't known then that the main transmission method was by
aerosol, not droplets. The authorities wrongly assumed that Covid was just
another Asian flu.

As a result, most of the early well-meaning Covid safety advice was wrong.
For example, all that stuff about hand washing and not touching surfaces
touched by others has almost no benefit as far as Covid is concerned
(obviously, there are other benefits from keeping hands clean). And boiling
gloves was ridiculous.

Just being in the same room with a possibly asymptomatic Covid sufferer is
enough, even if you and they are both masked. It can even get from one
hotel room to another via the aircon ducts. That's been a problem with the
government quarantine hotels.

[m***@round-midnight.org.uk]

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by NY

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our
platforms, Emirates Air Line terminals and river piers and on our bus,
tram, train, Emirates Air Line and Dial-a-Ride services.
...so that's going to be interesting on Monday when National Rail services
no longer require the use of face coverings but TfL services do, as part of
the conditions of carriage.
For example...
• ...at Rickmansworth, which is outside London but owned by TfL so you'll
have to wear a face covering even if you're waiting for a Chiltern service,
but you can take it off once you step aboard.
• ...at Upminster, which is not owned by TfL so you won't need a face
covering to enter the station but you will need to put on it if you step
onto on a District line train or Overground service.
• ...at Finsbury Park which is not owned by TfL (so you're not "in our
stations"), but has tube platforms underground where you will have to wear
one (because you'll be "on our platforms").
• ...at Farringdon, which is operated by TfL but has separate Thameslink
platforms where you definitely should/shouldn't wear a face covering, it's
not clear.

There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place. It's no longer mandatory to wear a mask in many places, but
nor is it mandatory *not* to wear one - it's up to personal choice and I
choose to carry on wearing one for the time being.

there speaks a man who obviously doesn't wear glasses

And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards,

Only if you are wearing the "wrong kind of mask". But I suppose lots of
people do.

Hardly anyone wears professionally fitted FFP3 medical grade masks whose
tightl seal to the face is tested.
<https://www.nhsggc.org.uk/media/236642/1e1100-arco-qualitative-face-fit-test-equipment.pdf>
And forget it if you aren't clean shaven.

Post by Recliner
making it more likely to be breathed in by others. So the masks
actually help spread the Covid aerosol.

Although the mask initiative was really only intended to stop people
coughing and sneezing directly upon others, rather than not-breathing on
them.

Yes, because it wasn't known then that the main transmission method was by
aerosol, not droplets. The authorities wrongly assumed that Covid was just
another Asian flu.
As a result, most of the early well-meaning Covid safety advice was wrong.
For example, all that stuff about hand washing and not touching surfaces
touched by others has almost no benefit as far as Covid is concerned
(obviously, there are other benefits from keeping hands clean). And boiling
gloves was ridiculous.

I think it was on Indie SAGE where they said that because people touched
their face so often they thought hand washing should continue.

Post by Recliner
Just being in the same room with a possibly asymptomatic Covid sufferer is
enough, even if you and they are both masked. It can even get from one
hotel room to another via the aircon ducts. That's been a problem with the
government quarantine hotels.

[Recliner]

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by NY

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our
platforms, Emirates Air Line terminals and river piers and on our bus,
tram, train, Emirates Air Line and Dial-a-Ride services.
...so that's going to be interesting on Monday when National Rail services
no longer require the use of face coverings but TfL services do, as part of
the conditions of carriage.
For example...
• ...at Rickmansworth, which is outside London but owned by TfL so you'll
have to wear a face covering even if you're waiting for a Chiltern service,
but you can take it off once you step aboard.
• ...at Upminster, which is not owned by TfL so you won't need a face
covering to enter the station but you will need to put on it if you step
onto on a District line train or Overground service.
• ...at Finsbury Park which is not owned by TfL (so you're not "in our
stations"), but has tube platforms underground where you will have to wear
one (because you'll be "on our platforms").
• ...at Farringdon, which is operated by TfL but has separate Thameslink
platforms where you definitely should/shouldn't wear a face covering, it's
not clear.

There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place. It's no longer mandatory to wear a mask in many places, but
nor is it mandatory *not* to wear one - it's up to personal choice and I
choose to carry on wearing one for the time being.

there speaks a man who obviously doesn't wear glasses

And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards,

Only if you are wearing the "wrong kind of mask". But I suppose lots of
people do.

Hardly anyone wears professionally fitted FFP3 medical grade masks whose
tightl seal to the face is tested.
<https://www.nhsggc.org.uk/media/236642/1e1100-arco-qualitative-face-fit-test-equipment.pdf>
And forget it if you aren't clean shaven.

Post by Recliner
making it more likely to be breathed in by others. So the masks
actually help spread the Covid aerosol.

Although the mask initiative was really only intended to stop people
coughing and sneezing directly upon others, rather than not-breathing on
them.

Yes, because it wasn't known then that the main transmission method was by
aerosol, not droplets. The authorities wrongly assumed that Covid was just
another Asian flu.
As a result, most of the early well-meaning Covid safety advice was wrong.
For example, all that stuff about hand washing and not touching surfaces
touched by others has almost no benefit as far as Covid is concerned
(obviously, there are other benefits from keeping hands clean). And boiling
gloves was ridiculous.

I think it was on Indie SAGE where they said that because people touched
their face so often they thought hand washing should continue.

But the virus is breathed in, not ingested, and there's no evidence of
transmisssion from contaminated surfaces. It's an example of well-meaning,
but pointless, advice not based on evidence. There are other health
benefits from keeping your hands clean, but it won't save you from Covid.

They should have put more emphasis on opening windows and fitting UV-C air
sterilisers to airconditioning ducts and even using them in enclosed,
crowded rooms. There are commercial air purifiers that include UV-C
filters, such as these:

https://ilimex.co.uk

https://www.aed-defibrillator.co.uk/uv_workplace_steriliser.html

But I think there should have been mass produced, simpler, cheaper devices
that just provide UV-C air sterilisation, for use in doctor and dentist
surgeries, restaurants, pubs, stuffy offices, etc. They'd be essentially a
box with quiet, low speed fans blowing room air through an enclosed,
reflective duct with powerful UV-C lights.

[m***@round-midnight.org.uk]

Post by Recliner

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by NY

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our
platforms, Emirates Air Line terminals and river piers and on our bus,
tram, train, Emirates Air Line and Dial-a-Ride services.
...so that's going to be interesting on Monday when National Rail services
no longer require the use of face coverings but TfL services do, as part of
the conditions of carriage.
For example...
• ...at Rickmansworth, which is outside London but owned by TfL so you'll
have to wear a face covering even if you're waiting for a Chiltern service,
but you can take it off once you step aboard.
• ...at Upminster, which is not owned by TfL so you won't need a face
covering to enter the station but you will need to put on it if you step
onto on a District line train or Overground service.
• ...at Finsbury Park which is not owned by TfL (so you're not "in our
stations"), but has tube platforms underground where you will have to wear
one (because you'll be "on our platforms").
• ...at Farringdon, which is operated by TfL but has separate Thameslink
platforms where you definitely should/shouldn't wear a face covering, it's
not clear.

There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place. It's no longer mandatory to wear a mask in many places, but
nor is it mandatory *not* to wear one - it's up to personal choice and I
choose to carry on wearing one for the time being.

there speaks a man who obviously doesn't wear glasses

And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards,

Only if you are wearing the "wrong kind of mask". But I suppose lots of
people do.

Hardly anyone wears professionally fitted FFP3 medical grade masks whose
tightl seal to the face is tested.
<https://www.nhsggc.org.uk/media/236642/1e1100-arco-qualitative-face-fit-test-equipment.pdf>
And forget it if you aren't clean shaven.

Post by Recliner
making it more likely to be breathed in by others. So the masks
actually help spread the Covid aerosol.

Although the mask initiative was really only intended to stop people
coughing and sneezing directly upon others, rather than not-breathing on
them.

Yes, because it wasn't known then that the main transmission method was by
aerosol, not droplets. The authorities wrongly assumed that Covid was just
another Asian flu.
As a result, most of the early well-meaning Covid safety advice was wrong.
For example, all that stuff about hand washing and not touching surfaces
touched by others has almost no benefit as far as Covid is concerned
(obviously, there are other benefits from keeping hands clean). And boiling
gloves was ridiculous.

I think it was on Indie SAGE where they said that because people touched
their face so often they thought hand washing should continue.

But the virus is breathed in, not ingested, and there's no evidence of
transmisssion from contaminated surfaces. It's an example of well-meaning,
but pointless, advice not based on evidence. There are other health
benefits from keeping your hands clean, but it won't save you from Covid.

Bear in mind people stuff their fingers up their noses and in their
mouths or just "itch" their nose.

Post by Recliner
They should have put more emphasis on opening windows and fitting UV-C air
sterilisers to airconditioning ducts and even using them in enclosed,
crowded rooms. There are commercial air purifiers that include UV-C

There certainly should be more emphasis on this. If fact any emphasis
would be better!

If children are going to remain unvaccinated then ventilation in schools
is needed urgently.

Any one measure alone is not enough to protect us. Each measure
provides too little protection but adequate in combination.
Does anyone remember the schools of their childhood where all the
classrooms had large opening windows and plenty of daylight which opened
to an outside covered corridor? They were designed to improve
children's health with plenty of fresh air and daylight and they worked
but that lesson has long been ignored by the political class.

Post by Recliner
https://ilimex.co.uk
https://www.aed-defibrillator.co.uk/uv_workplace_steriliser.html
But I think there should have been mass produced, simpler, cheaper devices
that just provide UV-C air sterilisation, for use in doctor and dentist
surgeries, restaurants, pubs, stuffy offices, etc. They'd be essentially a
box with quiet, low speed fans blowing room air through an enclosed,
reflective duct with powerful UV-C lights.

[Tweed]

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk

Post by Recliner

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by NY

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our
platforms, Emirates Air Line terminals and river piers and on our bus,
tram, train, Emirates Air Line and Dial-a-Ride services.
...so that's going to be interesting on Monday when National Rail services
no longer require the use of face coverings but TfL services do, as part of
the conditions of carriage.
For example...
• ...at Rickmansworth, which is outside London but owned by TfL so you'll
have to wear a face covering even if you're waiting for a Chiltern service,
but you can take it off once you step aboard.
• ...at Upminster, which is not owned by TfL so you won't need a face
covering to enter the station but you will need to put on it if you step
onto on a District line train or Overground service.
• ...at Finsbury Park which is not owned by TfL (so you're not "in our
stations"), but has tube platforms underground where you will have to wear
one (because you'll be "on our platforms").
• ...at Farringdon, which is operated by TfL but has separate Thameslink
platforms where you definitely should/shouldn't wear a face covering, it's
not clear.

There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place. It's no longer mandatory to wear a mask in many places, but
nor is it mandatory *not* to wear one - it's up to personal choice and I
choose to carry on wearing one for the time being.

there speaks a man who obviously doesn't wear glasses

And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards,

Only if you are wearing the "wrong kind of mask". But I suppose lots of
people do.

Hardly anyone wears professionally fitted FFP3 medical grade masks whose
tightl seal to the face is tested.
<https://www.nhsggc.org.uk/media/236642/1e1100-arco-qualitative-face-fit-test-equipment.pdf>
And forget it if you aren't clean shaven.

Post by Recliner
making it more likely to be breathed in by others. So the masks
actually help spread the Covid aerosol.

Although the mask initiative was really only intended to stop people
coughing and sneezing directly upon others, rather than not-breathing on
them.

Yes, because it wasn't known then that the main transmission method was by
aerosol, not droplets. The authorities wrongly assumed that Covid was just
another Asian flu.
As a result, most of the early well-meaning Covid safety advice was wrong.
For example, all that stuff about hand washing and not touching surfaces
touched by others has almost no benefit as far as Covid is concerned
(obviously, there are other benefits from keeping hands clean). And boiling
gloves was ridiculous.

I think it was on Indie SAGE where they said that because people touched
their face so often they thought hand washing should continue.

But the virus is breathed in, not ingested, and there's no evidence of
transmisssion from contaminated surfaces. It's an example of well-meaning,
but pointless, advice not based on evidence. There are other health
benefits from keeping your hands clean, but it won't save you from Covid.

Bear in mind people stuff their fingers up their noses and in their
mouths or just "itch" their nose.

Post by Recliner
They should have put more emphasis on opening windows and fitting UV-C air
sterilisers to airconditioning ducts and even using them in enclosed,
crowded rooms. There are commercial air purifiers that include UV-C

There certainly should be more emphasis on this. If fact any emphasis
would be better!
If children are going to remain unvaccinated then ventilation in schools
is needed urgently.
Any one measure alone is not enough to protect us. Each measure
provides too little protection but adequate in combination.
Does anyone remember the schools of their childhood where all the
classrooms had large opening windows and plenty of daylight which opened
to an outside covered corridor? They were designed to improve
children's health with plenty of fresh air and daylight and they worked
but that lesson has long been ignored by the political class.

Daylight through a glass window won’t help much. Glass is opaque to the UV
wavelengths that produce any useful sterilising effect. Mind you, daylight
does have many other psychological benefits.

[m***@round-midnight.org.uk]

Post by Tweed

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk

Post by Recliner

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by NY

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London
are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our
platforms, Emirates Air Line terminals and river piers and on our bus,
tram, train, Emirates Air Line and Dial-a-Ride services.
...so that's going to be interesting on Monday when National Rail
services
no longer require the use of face coverings but TfL services do, as part
of
the conditions of carriage.
For example...
• ...at Rickmansworth, which is outside London but owned by TfL so you'll
have to wear a face covering even if you're waiting for a Chiltern
service,
but you can take it off once you step aboard.
• ...at Upminster, which is not owned by TfL so you won't need a face
covering to enter the station but you will need to put on it if you step
onto on a District line train or Overground service.
• ...at Finsbury Park which is not owned by TfL (so you're not "in our
stations"), but has tube platforms underground where you will have to
wear
one (because you'll be "on our platforms").
• ...at Farringdon, which is operated by TfL but has separate Thameslink
platforms where you definitely should/shouldn't wear a face covering,
it's
not clear.

There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place. It's no longer mandatory to wear a mask in many places, but
nor is it mandatory *not* to wear one - it's up to personal choice and I
choose to carry on wearing one for the time being.

there speaks a man who obviously doesn't wear glasses

And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards,

Only if you are wearing the "wrong kind of mask". But I suppose lots of
people do.

Hardly anyone wears professionally fitted FFP3 medical grade masks whose
tightl seal to the face is tested.
<https://www.nhsggc.org.uk/media/236642/1e1100-arco-qualitative-face-fit-test-equipment.pdf>
And forget it if you aren't clean shaven.

Post by Recliner
making it more likely to be breathed in by others. So the masks
actually help spread the Covid aerosol.

Although the mask initiative was really only intended to stop people
coughing and sneezing directly upon others, rather than not-breathing on
them.

Yes, because it wasn't known then that the main transmission method was by
aerosol, not droplets. The authorities wrongly assumed that Covid was just
another Asian flu.
As a result, most of the early well-meaning Covid safety advice was wrong.
For example, all that stuff about hand washing and not touching surfaces
touched by others has almost no benefit as far as Covid is concerned
(obviously, there are other benefits from keeping hands clean). And boiling
gloves was ridiculous.

I think it was on Indie SAGE where they said that because people touched
their face so often they thought hand washing should continue.

But the virus is breathed in, not ingested, and there's no evidence of
transmisssion from contaminated surfaces. It's an example of well-meaning,
but pointless, advice not based on evidence. There are other health
benefits from keeping your hands clean, but it won't save you from Covid.

Bear in mind people stuff their fingers up their noses and in their
mouths or just "itch" their nose.

Post by Recliner
They should have put more emphasis on opening windows and fitting UV-C air
sterilisers to airconditioning ducts and even using them in enclosed,
crowded rooms. There are commercial air purifiers that include UV-C

There certainly should be more emphasis on this. If fact any emphasis
would be better!
If children are going to remain unvaccinated then ventilation in schools
is needed urgently.
Any one measure alone is not enough to protect us. Each measure
provides too little protection but adequate in combination.
Does anyone remember the schools of their childhood where all the
classrooms had large opening windows and plenty of daylight which opened
to an outside covered corridor? They were designed to improve
children's health with plenty of fresh air and daylight and they worked
but that lesson has long been ignored by the political class.

Daylight through a glass window won’t help much. Glass is opaque to the UV
wavelengths that produce any useful sterilising effect. Mind you, daylight
does have many other psychological benefits.

The benefits of daylight were know even in those days. I wasn't
suggesting the daylight provided UV protection but pointing out where
best practice for children's health is now ignored in schools.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner
And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards,

Only if you are wearing the "wrong kind of mask". But I suppose lots of
people do.

Hardly anyone wears professionally fitted FFP3 medical grade masks whose
tightl seal to the face is tested.

There are plenty of FFP2 masks which are sculptured to the face and
significantly better at protecting the wearer than the classic surgical
mask.

Post by Recliner

Although the mask initiative was really only intended to stop people
coughing and sneezing directly upon others, rather than not-breathing on
them.

Yes, because it wasn't known then that the main transmission method was by
aerosol, not droplets.

If it wasn't at lest strongly suspected, why recommend masks at all?

Post by Recliner
Just being in the same room with a possibly asymptomatic Covid sufferer is
enough, even if you and they are both masked. It can even get from one
hotel room to another via the aircon ducts. That's been a problem with the
government quarantine hotels.

Have you revised your earlier views about the aircon in planes spreading
the virus?

[Tweed]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner
And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards,

Only if you are wearing the "wrong kind of mask". But I suppose lots of
people do.

Hardly anyone wears professionally fitted FFP3 medical grade masks whose
tightl seal to the face is tested.

There are plenty of FFP2 masks which are sculptured to the face and
significantly better at protecting the wearer than the classic surgical
mask.

Post by Recliner

Although the mask initiative was really only intended to stop people
coughing and sneezing directly upon others, rather than not-breathing on
them.

Yes, because it wasn't known then that the main transmission method was by
aerosol, not droplets.

If it wasn't at lest strongly suspected, why recommend masks at all?

Post by Recliner
Just being in the same room with a possibly asymptomatic Covid sufferer is
enough, even if you and they are both masked. It can even get from one
hotel room to another via the aircon ducts. That's been a problem with the
government quarantine hotels.

Have you revised your earlier views about the aircon in planes spreading
the virus?

Planes do at least have HEPA filters in their air conditioning. I suspect
the risk on the plane is much lower than being stuck in huge security
queues, the jetway and hours in the immigration queue on the way back.

[Recliner]

Post by Tweed

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner
And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards,

Only if you are wearing the "wrong kind of mask". But I suppose lots of
people do.

Hardly anyone wears professionally fitted FFP3 medical grade masks whose
tightl seal to the face is tested.

There are plenty of FFP2 masks which are sculptured to the face and
significantly better at protecting the wearer than the classic surgical
mask.

Post by Recliner

Although the mask initiative was really only intended to stop people
coughing and sneezing directly upon others, rather than not-breathing on
them.

Yes, because it wasn't known then that the main transmission method was by
aerosol, not droplets.

If it wasn't at lest strongly suspected, why recommend masks at all?

Post by Recliner
Just being in the same room with a possibly asymptomatic Covid sufferer is
enough, even if you and they are both masked. It can even get from one
hotel room to another via the aircon ducts. That's been a problem with the
government quarantine hotels.

Have you revised your earlier views about the aircon in planes spreading
the virus?

Planes do at least have HEPA filters in their air conditioning. I suspect
the risk on the plane is much lower than being stuck in huge security
queues, the jetway and hours in the immigration queue on the way back.

Yes, definitely. It's amazing that, initially, people arriving from red
list countries were being handled in the same space as those from low risk
countries. Just having separate queues provide little protection against
aerosols.

[m***@round-midnight.org.uk]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner
And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards,

Only if you are wearing the "wrong kind of mask". But I suppose lots of
people do.

Hardly anyone wears professionally fitted FFP3 medical grade masks whose
tightl seal to the face is tested.

There are plenty of FFP2 masks which are sculptured to the face and
significantly better at protecting the wearer than the classic surgical
mask.

Post by Recliner

Although the mask initiative was really only intended to stop people
coughing and sneezing directly upon others, rather than not-breathing on
them.

Yes, because it wasn't known then that the main transmission method was by
aerosol, not droplets.

If it wasn't at lest strongly suspected, why recommend masks at all?

Post by Recliner
Just being in the same room with a possibly asymptomatic Covid sufferer is
enough, even if you and they are both masked. It can even get from one
hotel room to another via the aircon ducts. That's been a problem with the
government quarantine hotels.

Have you revised your earlier views about the aircon in planes spreading
the virus?

I've heard it said that that existing hotel designs are not really
adequate to contain the delta variant.

I'm wondering if covid will encourage the redesign of hotels. Perhaps
they'll go back to having individual aircon units for each customer
room? It would be a strong marketing point.

[Recliner]

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner
And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards,

Only if you are wearing the "wrong kind of mask". But I suppose lots of
people do.

Hardly anyone wears professionally fitted FFP3 medical grade masks whose
tightl seal to the face is tested.

There are plenty of FFP2 masks which are sculptured to the face and
significantly better at protecting the wearer than the classic surgical
mask.

Post by Recliner

Although the mask initiative was really only intended to stop people
coughing and sneezing directly upon others, rather than not-breathing on
them.

Yes, because it wasn't known then that the main transmission method was by
aerosol, not droplets.

If it wasn't at lest strongly suspected, why recommend masks at all?

Post by Recliner
Just being in the same room with a possibly asymptomatic Covid sufferer is
enough, even if you and they are both masked. It can even get from one
hotel room to another via the aircon ducts. That's been a problem with the
government quarantine hotels.

Have you revised your earlier views about the aircon in planes spreading
the virus?

I've heard it said that that existing hotel designs are not really
adequate to contain the delta variant.

Yes, there's not enough isolation between rooms. They also need to re-think
how meals are delivered, and how the unwilling 'guests' are accompanied by
security on their way to an outdoor space for exercise. It had been assumed
that it was OK for staff and guests to occupy the same space, as long as
they kept a couple of metres apart, and wore masks. We now know that's not
enough.

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
I'm wondering if covid will encourage the redesign of hotels. Perhaps
they'll go back to having individual aircon units for each customer
room? It would be a strong marketing point.

Yes, good point. Or they need to fit powerful UV-C steriliser lights in the
aircon ducts conveying recirculated air, and run the aircon with the lowest
available recirculation setting.

[m***@round-midnight.org.uk]

Post by Recliner

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner
And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards,

Only if you are wearing the "wrong kind of mask". But I suppose lots of
people do.

Hardly anyone wears professionally fitted FFP3 medical grade masks whose
tightl seal to the face is tested.

There are plenty of FFP2 masks which are sculptured to the face and
significantly better at protecting the wearer than the classic surgical
mask.

Post by Recliner

Although the mask initiative was really only intended to stop people
coughing and sneezing directly upon others, rather than not-breathing on
them.

Yes, because it wasn't known then that the main transmission method was by
aerosol, not droplets.

If it wasn't at lest strongly suspected, why recommend masks at all?

Post by Recliner
Just being in the same room with a possibly asymptomatic Covid sufferer is
enough, even if you and they are both masked. It can even get from one
hotel room to another via the aircon ducts. That's been a problem with the
government quarantine hotels.

Have you revised your earlier views about the aircon in planes spreading
the virus?

I've heard it said that that existing hotel designs are not really
adequate to contain the delta variant.

Yes, there's not enough isolation between rooms. They also need to re-think
how meals are delivered, and how the unwilling 'guests' are accompanied by
security on their way to an outdoor space for exercise. It had been assumed
that it was OK for staff and guests to occupy the same space, as long as
they kept a couple of metres apart, and wore masks. We now know that's not
enough.

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
I'm wondering if covid will encourage the redesign of hotels. Perhaps
they'll go back to having individual aircon units for each customer
room? It would be a strong marketing point.

Yes, good point. Or they need to fit powerful UV-C steriliser lights in the
aircon ducts conveying recirculated air, and run the aircon with the lowest
available recirculation setting.

I think individual aircon will better for marketing purposes as that is
something you can physically see. UV-C steriliser lights will only work
if properly maintained and we know from cases of Legionnaire's decease
there's a wide disregard of the regulations.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner
And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards,

Only if you are wearing the "wrong kind of mask". But I suppose lots of
people do.

Hardly anyone wears professionally fitted FFP3 medical grade masks whose
tightl seal to the face is tested.

There are plenty of FFP2 masks which are sculptured to the face and
significantly better at protecting the wearer than the classic surgical
mask.

Post by Recliner

Although the mask initiative was really only intended to stop people
coughing and sneezing directly upon others, rather than not-breathing on
them.

Yes, because it wasn't known then that the main transmission method was by
aerosol, not droplets.

If it wasn't at lest strongly suspected, why recommend masks at all?

They assumed it was just another Asian flu, where masks would provide more
protection.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Just being in the same room with a possibly asymptomatic Covid sufferer is
enough, even if you and they are both masked. It can even get from one
hotel room to another via the aircon ducts. That's been a problem with the
government quarantine hotels.

Have you revised your earlier views about the aircon in planes spreading
the virus?

No. Planes have low air recirculation and HEPA filters on the recirculated
air, so they're much better than most enclosed spaces. It's still possible
to catch it from (exhaled air from) an infected person a few rows away, but
not from the other end of the plane. Masks would only provide protection to
people in the immediate vicinity.

[m***@round-midnight.org.uk]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner
And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards,

Only if you are wearing the "wrong kind of mask". But I suppose lots of
people do.

Hardly anyone wears professionally fitted FFP3 medical grade masks whose
tightl seal to the face is tested.

There are plenty of FFP2 masks which are sculptured to the face and
significantly better at protecting the wearer than the classic surgical
mask.

Post by Recliner

Although the mask initiative was really only intended to stop people
coughing and sneezing directly upon others, rather than not-breathing on
them.

Yes, because it wasn't known then that the main transmission method was by
aerosol, not droplets.

If it wasn't at lest strongly suspected, why recommend masks at all?

They assumed it was just another Asian flu, where masks would provide more
protection.

So little was known at the start that they had to make their best guess.
What is wrong is that the UK governments have not updated their advice
to reflect more recent knowledge. Nor are they learning from their past
mistakes.

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Just being in the same room with a possibly asymptomatic Covid sufferer is
enough, even if you and they are both masked. It can even get from one
hotel room to another via the aircon ducts. That's been a problem with the
government quarantine hotels.

Have you revised your earlier views about the aircon in planes spreading
the virus?

No. Planes have low air recirculation and HEPA filters on the recirculated
air, so they're much better than most enclosed spaces. It's still possible
to catch it from (exhaled air from) an infected person a few rows away, but
not from the other end of the plane. Masks would only provide protection to
people in the immediate vicinity.

To be precise the risk in planes has increased as the virus has become
more infectious.

The Australians have identified a couple of cases where it appears the
virus was transfer by two people just passing in a shopping centre.

We should just be grateful that Covid is not as infectious as foot and
mouth.

[Blueshirt]

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk

Post by Recliner
They assumed it was just another Asian flu, where masks would provide
more protection.

So little was known at the start that they had to make their best guess.
What is wrong is that the UK governments have not updated their advice
to reflect more recent knowledge. Nor are they learning from their past
mistakes.

The UK government is not alone in that...

[m***@round-midnight.org.uk]

Post by Blueshirt

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk

Post by Recliner
They assumed it was just another Asian flu, where masks would provide
more protection.

So little was known at the start that they had to make their best
guess. What is wrong is that the UK governments have not updated their
advice to reflect more recent knowledge. Nor are they learning from
their past mistakes.

The UK government is not alone in that...

Which other governments do you have in mind?

[Blueshirt]

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk

Post by Blueshirt

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk

Post by Recliner
They assumed it was just another Asian flu, where masks would
provide more protection.

So little was known at the start that they had to make their best
guess. What is wrong is that the UK governments have not updated
their advice to reflect more recent knowledge. Nor are they learning
from their past mistakes.

The UK government is not alone in that...

Which other governments do you have in mind?

There are plenty of other countries that were slow to act, especially in
regards to implementing lockdowns. The USA, Spain, Italy, Ireland,
Belarus, Iran, Mexico, Brazil (etc.) The WHO made their PHEIC
declaration ("Public health emergency of international concern" -
signalling that a pandemic might be imminent) at the end of January
2020. Sure, little might have been known at first but governments
baulked at taking the action needed when the science was presented to
them. Some world leaders thought they knew better, it wasn't *just*
Boris Johnson.

And as for learning from past mistakes? Well, we will see what winter
2021 brings us...

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Blueshirt

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk

Post by Blueshirt
The UK government is not alone in that...

Which other governments do you have in mind?

There are plenty of other countries that were slow to act, especially in
regards to implementing lockdowns. The USA, Spain, Italy, Ireland,
Belarus, Iran, Mexico, Brazil (etc.) The WHO made their PHEIC
declaration ("Public health emergency of international concern" -
signalling that a pandemic might be imminent) at the end of January
2020. Sure, little might have been known at first but governments
baulked at taking the action needed when the science was presented to
them. Some world leaders thought they knew better, it wasn't *just*
Boris Johnson.

The particular problem with lockdown is that it was widely perceived to
be something that might work in a culture of more authoritarian
government, such as that found in many Asian countries, but wouldn't
work in Europe and North America where civil liberties and individual
rights have a much stronger force. It wasn't until Italy, almost out of
desperation, was forced into it, and civil unrest did not immediately
follow, that other governments decided it would work here, too.

Also, one of the big problems with something that undergoes exponential
growth is that the majority of the population don't understand how it
works. So the time when lockdown would have had the biggest effect was
also the time when there would not have ben public support for it. In
this context, the way that the British government softened people up for
lockdown, by initially recommending voluntary avoidance of public places
before then making it compulsory, is, in retrospect, an excellent
example of expectation management.

Mark

[Recliner]

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner
And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards,

Only if you are wearing the "wrong kind of mask". But I suppose lots of
people do.

Hardly anyone wears professionally fitted FFP3 medical grade masks whose
tightl seal to the face is tested.

There are plenty of FFP2 masks which are sculptured to the face and
significantly better at protecting the wearer than the classic surgical
mask.

Post by Recliner

Although the mask initiative was really only intended to stop people
coughing and sneezing directly upon others, rather than not-breathing on
them.

Yes, because it wasn't known then that the main transmission method was by
aerosol, not droplets.

If it wasn't at lest strongly suspected, why recommend masks at all?

They assumed it was just another Asian flu, where masks would provide more
protection.

So little was known at the start that they had to make their best guess.
What is wrong is that the UK governments have not updated their advice
to reflect more recent knowledge. Nor are they learning from their past
mistakes.

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Just being in the same room with a possibly asymptomatic Covid sufferer is
enough, even if you and they are both masked. It can even get from one
hotel room to another via the aircon ducts. That's been a problem with the
government quarantine hotels.

Have you revised your earlier views about the aircon in planes spreading
the virus?

No. Planes have low air recirculation and HEPA filters on the recirculated
air, so they're much better than most enclosed spaces. It's still possible
to catch it from (exhaled air from) an infected person a few rows away, but
not from the other end of the plane. Masks would only provide protection to
people in the immediate vicinity.

To be precise the risk in planes has increased as the virus has become
more infectious.

True, but that's the case everywhere. Planes remain safer than other
equally densely packed enclosed spaces, which usually have much slower air
replacement cycles, and no HEPA filters.

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
The Australians have identified a couple of cases where it appears the
virus was transfer by two people just passing in a shopping centre.

Yes, that can happen, and wearing a flimsy mask won't help.

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
We should just be grateful that Covid is not as infectious as foot and
mouth.

Yup, there are much more infectious, and more deadly, diseases than
Covid-19.

[Blueshirt]

Post by Recliner
And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards,

Only if you are wearing the "wrong kind of mask". But I suppose lots of
people do.

A lot of masks seem to be fashion items, i.e. just printed pieces of
cloth. I'm told that these are fairly ineffective compared to the
medical-grade ones, but they are better than nothing ... for those that
think masks are the way to go of course.

Post by Recliner
making it more likely to be breathed in by others. So the masks
actually help spread the Covid aerosol.

Although the mask initiative was really only intended to stop people
coughing and sneezing directly upon others, rather than not-breathing on
them.

Some reusable face coverings do a really good job of filtering
particles, while being easy to breathe through, but others struggle to
get the balance right. Masks that have poor breathability can create a
build-up of moisture which then affects filtration. People seem to think
anything masked shaped will do the job. In some cases a [cheap] mask is
nothing more than a placebo.

[Recliner]

Post by Blueshirt

Post by Recliner
And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards,

Only if you are wearing the "wrong kind of mask". But I suppose lots of
people do.

A lot of masks seem to be fashion items, i.e. just printed pieces of
cloth. I'm told that these are fairly ineffective compared to the
medical-grade ones, but they are better than nothing ... for those that
think masks are the way to go of course.

Post by Recliner
making it more likely to be breathed in by others. So the masks
actually help spread the Covid aerosol.

Although the mask initiative was really only intended to stop people
coughing and sneezing directly upon others, rather than not-breathing on
them.

Some reusable face coverings do a really good job of filtering
particles,

They can filter dust, but provide almost no filtering of the tiny Covid
particles.

Post by Blueshirt
while being easy to breathe through, but others struggle to
get the balance right. Masks that have poor breathability can create a
build-up of moisture which then affects filtration. People seem to think
anything masked shaped will do the job. In some cases a [cheap] mask is
nothing more than a placebo.

That's true of most non-medical, flimsy, loose masks.

[Blueshirt]

Post by Blueshirt

Although the mask initiative was really only intended to stop people
coughing and sneezing directly upon others, rather than not-breathing on
them.

Some reusable face coverings do a really good job of filtering
particles,

They can filter dust, but provide almost no filtering of the tiny Covid particles.

Correct. That's why I think most masks are a waste of time.

Post by Blueshirt
People seem to think anything masked shaped will do the job. In some cases a [cheap] mask is nothing more than a placebo.

That's true of most non-medical, flimsy, loose masks.

Which is what the majority of people [on the tube] will be wearing while
thinking they are being good citizens.

[m***@round-midnight.org.uk]

Post by Blueshirt

Post by Blueshirt

Although the mask initiative was really only intended to stop people
coughing and sneezing directly upon others, rather than
not-breathing on
them.

Some reusable face coverings do a really good job of filtering
particles,

They can filter dust, but provide almost no filtering of the tiny Covid particles.

Correct. That's why I think most masks are a waste of time.

I'm not quite that convinced but I will say I think FFP3 masks should be
replacing normal masks.

Post by Blueshirt

Post by Blueshirt
People seem to think anything masked shaped will do the job. In some
cases a [cheap] mask is nothing more than a placebo.

That's true of most non-medical, flimsy, loose masks.

Which is what the majority of people [on the tube] will be wearing while
thinking they are being good citizens.

[Recliner]

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk

Post by Blueshirt

Post by Blueshirt

Although the mask initiative was really only intended to stop people
coughing and sneezing directly upon others, rather than
not-breathing on
them.

Some reusable face coverings do a really good job of filtering
particles,

They can filter dust, but provide almost no filtering of the tiny Covid particles.

Correct. That's why I think most masks are a waste of time.

I'm not quite that convinced but I will say I think FFP3 masks should be
replacing normal masks.

They cost around £5 and are single use, so who will pay?

[Tweed]

Post by Recliner

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk

Post by Blueshirt

Post by Blueshirt

Although the mask initiative was really only intended to stop people
coughing and sneezing directly upon others, rather than
not-breathing on
them.

Some reusable face coverings do a really good job of filtering
particles,

They can filter dust, but provide almost no filtering of the tiny Covid particles.

Correct. That's why I think most masks are a waste of time.

I'm not quite that convinced but I will say I think FFP3 masks should be
replacing normal masks.

They cost around £5 and are single use, so who will pay?

They can be made to last more than one use. They seem happy to send out
vast quantities of lateral flow tests. Government has spent 1.3 billion
pounds on 384 million lateral flow tests. That’s about £3.30 each. I spent
£70 on a box of 20 FFP3 masks. I suspect in the million off they come in a
bit cheaper.

[Jeremy Double]

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by NY

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our
platforms, Emirates Air Line terminals and river piers and on our bus,
tram, train, Emirates Air Line and Dial-a-Ride services.
...so that's going to be interesting on Monday when National Rail services
no longer require the use of face coverings but TfL services do, as part of
the conditions of carriage.
For example...
• ...at Rickmansworth, which is outside London but owned by TfL so you'll
have to wear a face covering even if you're waiting for a Chiltern service,
but you can take it off once you step aboard.
• ...at Upminster, which is not owned by TfL so you won't need a face
covering to enter the station but you will need to put on it if you step
onto on a District line train or Overground service.
• ...at Finsbury Park which is not owned by TfL (so you're not "in our
stations"), but has tube platforms underground where you will have to wear
one (because you'll be "on our platforms").
• ...at Farringdon, which is operated by TfL but has separate Thameslink
platforms where you definitely should/shouldn't wear a face covering, it's
not clear.

There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place. It's no longer mandatory to wear a mask in many places, but
nor is it mandatory *not* to wear one - it's up to personal choice and I
choose to carry on wearing one for the time being.

there speaks a man who obviously doesn't wear glasses

And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards, making it
more likely to be breathed in by others. So the masks actually help spread
the Covid aerosol.

When you take off your mask, have a look inside. You will find that it is
damp. All that dampness comes from aerosol droplets that you breathed out.
So the total quantity of aerosol droplets going into the air of the
carriage is reduced, reducing the risk of passing on the virus. It’s not
an all-or-nothing thing.

[Recliner]

Post by Jeremy Double

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by NY

Post by Recliner
From next Monday, 'Freedom Day', the rules for travelling around London are
relaxed. But Geezer points out that there may be one or two confusing
details...
From
<https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2021/07/conditions-of-carriage.html>
Conditions of carriage - TfL
You must wear a face covering when in our bus and rail stations, on our
platforms, Emirates Air Line terminals and river piers and on our bus,
tram, train, Emirates Air Line and Dial-a-Ride services.
...so that's going to be interesting on Monday when National Rail services
no longer require the use of face coverings but TfL services do, as part of
the conditions of carriage.
For example...
• ...at Rickmansworth, which is outside London but owned by TfL so you'll
have to wear a face covering even if you're waiting for a Chiltern service,
but you can take it off once you step aboard.
• ...at Upminster, which is not owned by TfL so you won't need a face
covering to enter the station but you will need to put on it if you step
onto on a District line train or Overground service.
• ...at Finsbury Park which is not owned by TfL (so you're not "in our
stations"), but has tube platforms underground where you will have to wear
one (because you'll be "on our platforms").
• ...at Farringdon, which is operated by TfL but has separate Thameslink
platforms where you definitely should/shouldn't wear a face covering, it's
not clear.

There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place. It's no longer mandatory to wear a mask in many places, but
nor is it mandatory *not* to wear one - it's up to personal choice and I
choose to carry on wearing one for the time being.

there speaks a man who obviously doesn't wear glasses

And the fogging of the glasses is a clear demonstration of how useless the
masks are. Instead of potentially contaminated air exhaled from the nose
going straight down, it's instead deflected upwards and outwards, making it
more likely to be breathed in by others. So the masks actually help spread
the Covid aerosol.

When you take off your mask, have a look inside. You will find that it is
damp. All that dampness comes from aerosol droplets that you breathed out.
So the total quantity of aerosol droplets going into the air of the
carriage is reduced, reducing the risk of passing on the virus. It’s not
an all-or-nothing thing.

Don't confuse the larger droplets with the tiny liquid particles in the
aerosol.

<https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted>

The masks will catch some of the droplets, but not the aerosol. And it's
the latter that's now known to be the main transmission mechanism (that
wasn't known when most of the official advice came out, and officialdom
hates to admit it was wrong).

Droplets don't travel more than about a metre, or stay in the air for long,
but the tiny aerosol particles can travel long distances, and stay active
in the air for hours. In a stuffy room, they could be breathed in by
someone on the other side of the room, and infect them. It could happen
long after the infected person has left the room. They can even be
transmitted via aircon ducts to someone in another room. And normal,
non-PPE grade masks won't help.

People who think ordinary masks that only catch exhaled droplets provide
any level of useful protection should read this article in the Lancet:

<https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)00869-2/fulltext>

A few extracts:

Decades of painstaking research, which did not include capturing live
pathogens in the air, showed that diseases once considered to be spread by
droplets are airborne. Ten streams of evidence collectively support the
hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted primarily by the airborne route.

...

Detailed analyses of human behaviours and interactions, room sizes,
ventilation, and other variables in choir concerts, cruise ships,
slaughterhouses, care homes, and correctional facilities, among other
settings, have shown patterns—eg, long-range transmission and
overdispersion of the basic reproduction number (R0), discussed
below—consistent with airborne spread of SARS-CoV-2 that cannot be
adequately explained by droplets or fomites. The high incidence of such
events strongly suggests the dominance of aerosol transmission.

Second, long-range transmission of SARS-CoV-2 between people in adjacent
rooms but never in each other's presence has been documented in quarantine
hotels. Historically, it was possible to prove long-range transmission only
in the complete absence of community transmission.

...

Direct measurements show that speaking produces thousands of aerosol
particles and few large droplets,9 which supports the airborne route.

Fourth, transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is higher indoors than outdoors and is
substantially reduced by indoor ventilation. Both observations support a
predominantly airborne route of transmission.

Fifth, nosocomial infections have been documented in health-care
organisations, where there have been strict contact-and-droplet precautions
and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) designed to protect against
droplet but not aerosol exposure.

Sixth, viable SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the air. In laboratory
experiments, SARS-CoV-2 stayed infectious in the air for up to 3 h with a
half-life of 1·1 h.

...


Seventh, SARS-CoV-2 has been identified in air filters and building ducts
in hospitals with COVID-19 patients; such locations could be reached only
by aerosols.

Eighth, studies involving infected caged animals that were connected to
separately caged uninfected animals via an air duct have shown transmission
of SARS-CoV-2 that can be adequately explained only by aerosols.

...

Tenth, there is limited evidence to support other dominant routes of
transmission—ie, respiratory droplet or fomite. Ease of infection between
people in close proximity to each other has been cited as proof of
respiratory droplet transmission of SARS-CoV-2. However, close-proximity
transmission in most cases along with distant infection for a few when
sharing air is more likely to be explained by dilution of exhaled aerosols
with distance from an infected person.

The flawed assumption that transmission through close proximity implies
large respiratory droplets or fomites was historically used for decades to
deny the airborne transmission of tuberculosis and measles. This became
medical dogma, ignoring direct measurements of aerosols and droplets which
reveal flaws such as the overwhelming number of aerosols produced in
respiratory activities and the arbitrary boundary in particle size of 5 μm
between aerosols and droplets, instead of the correct boundary of 100 μm.

It is sometimes argued that since respiratory droplets are larger than
aerosols, they must contain more viruses. However, in diseases where
pathogen concentrations have been quantified by particle size, smaller
aerosols showed higher pathogen concentrations than droplets when both were
measured.

In conclusion, we propose that it is a scientific error to use lack of
direct evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in some air samples to cast doubt on airborne
transmission while overlooking the quality and strength of the overall
evidence base. There is consistent, strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 spreads
by airborne transmission. Although other routes can contribute, we believe
that the airborne route is likely to be dominant. The public health
community should act accordingly and without further delay.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner
The masks will catch some of the droplets, but not the aerosol.

So we aren't at cross purposes, what's the particle size in that
aerosol, and is it smaller than the N95 spec. (I provided some
references earlier)

[Jeremy Double]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things being
used each day.

B******s! Masks reduce transmission of the virus, and the virus is
spreading faster at the moment, due to the delta variant. The numbers of
people in hospital with the disease is increasing and the number of deaths
is increasing. Any of us could be carrying the virus and not know it, so
wearing a mask reduces the risk of unknowingly passing it on.

If you’re worried about the environmental impact of masks, use a washable
one and put it in with the rest of your laundry.

[Tweed]

Post by Jeremy Double

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things being
used each day.

B******s! Masks reduce transmission of the virus, and the virus is
spreading faster at the moment, due to the delta variant. The numbers of
people in hospital with the disease is increasing and the number of deaths
is increasing. Any of us could be carrying the virus and not know it, so
wearing a mask reduces the risk of unknowingly passing it on.
If you’re worried about the environmental impact of masks, use a washable
one and put it in with the rest of your laundry.

Are we actually sure a non FFP3 mask does reduce the risk of passing the
virus on? The original premise was that a mask cut down the velocity of
exhaled air allowing blobs of goo to fall to the ground over a shorter
distance. Now it seems that the virus hangs around in fine particles in air
currents, much like cigarette smoke, you actually need to properly filter
the exhaled air to prevent the virus being launched into the environment.
It’s not obvious that anything other than FFP2/3 achieves that.

Another way of thinking about it is to imagine that the mask wearer is
exhaling cigarette smoke (or a vape vapour trail to be more modern) From
what I’ve seen of vape plumes being exhaled I would imagine that most non
FFP2/3 masks would be useless.

[Recliner]

Post by Tweed

Post by Jeremy Double

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things being
used each day.

B******s! Masks reduce transmission of the virus, and the virus is
spreading faster at the moment, due to the delta variant. The numbers of
people in hospital with the disease is increasing and the number of deaths
is increasing. Any of us could be carrying the virus and not know it, so
wearing a mask reduces the risk of unknowingly passing it on.
If you’re worried about the environmental impact of masks, use a washable
one and put it in with the rest of your laundry.

Are we actually sure a non FFP3 mask does reduce the risk of passing the
virus on? The original premise was that a mask cut down the velocity of
exhaled air allowing blobs of goo to fall to the ground over a shorter
distance. Now it seems that the virus hangs around in fine particles in air
currents, much like cigarette smoke, you actually need to properly filter
the exhaled air to prevent the virus being launched into the environment.
It’s not obvious that anything other than FFP2/3 achieves that.
Another way of thinking about it is to imagine that the mask wearer is
exhaling cigarette smoke (or a vape vapour trail to be more modern) From
what I’ve seen of vape plumes being exhaled I would imagine that most non
FFP2/3 masks would be useless.

I think the test is whether the mask wearer can smell anything. For
example, can you smell the bakery in a supermarket? Can you smell petrol
and diesel in a filling station? Does a public loo smell unpleasant?

If the answer to any of those is "yes", then the mask isn't protecting you
from Covid.

[Tweed]

Post by Recliner

Post by Tweed

Post by Jeremy Double

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things being
used each day.

B******s! Masks reduce transmission of the virus, and the virus is
spreading faster at the moment, due to the delta variant. The numbers of
people in hospital with the disease is increasing and the number of deaths
is increasing. Any of us could be carrying the virus and not know it, so
wearing a mask reduces the risk of unknowingly passing it on.
If you’re worried about the environmental impact of masks, use a washable
one and put it in with the rest of your laundry.

Are we actually sure a non FFP3 mask does reduce the risk of passing the
virus on? The original premise was that a mask cut down the velocity of
exhaled air allowing blobs of goo to fall to the ground over a shorter
distance. Now it seems that the virus hangs around in fine particles in air
currents, much like cigarette smoke, you actually need to properly filter
the exhaled air to prevent the virus being launched into the environment.
It’s not obvious that anything other than FFP2/3 achieves that.
Another way of thinking about it is to imagine that the mask wearer is
exhaling cigarette smoke (or a vape vapour trail to be more modern) From
what I’ve seen of vape plumes being exhaled I would imagine that most non
FFP2/3 masks would be useless.

I think the test is whether the mask wearer can smell anything. For
example, can you smell the bakery in a supermarket? Can you smell petrol
and diesel in a filling station? Does a public loo smell unpleasant?
If the answer to any of those is "yes", then the mask isn't protecting you
from Covid.

I’m it entirely sure that’s true. Scent molecules are very small. Covid
particles are large by comparison.

[Recliner]

Post by Tweed

Post by Recliner

Post by Tweed

Post by Jeremy Double

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things being
used each day.

B******s! Masks reduce transmission of the virus, and the virus is
spreading faster at the moment, due to the delta variant. The numbers of
people in hospital with the disease is increasing and the number of deaths
is increasing. Any of us could be carrying the virus and not know it, so
wearing a mask reduces the risk of unknowingly passing it on.
If you’re worried about the environmental impact of masks, use a washable
one and put it in with the rest of your laundry.

Are we actually sure a non FFP3 mask does reduce the risk of passing the
virus on? The original premise was that a mask cut down the velocity of
exhaled air allowing blobs of goo to fall to the ground over a shorter
distance. Now it seems that the virus hangs around in fine particles in air
currents, much like cigarette smoke, you actually need to properly filter
the exhaled air to prevent the virus being launched into the environment.
It’s not obvious that anything other than FFP2/3 achieves that.
Another way of thinking about it is to imagine that the mask wearer is
exhaling cigarette smoke (or a vape vapour trail to be more modern) From
what I’ve seen of vape plumes being exhaled I would imagine that most non
FFP2/3 masks would be useless.

I think the test is whether the mask wearer can smell anything. For
example, can you smell the bakery in a supermarket? Can you smell petrol
and diesel in a filling station? Does a public loo smell unpleasant?
If the answer to any of those is "yes", then the mask isn't protecting you
from Covid.

I’m it entirely sure that’s true. Scent molecules are very small. Covid
particles are large by comparison.

They're in the same range. Coronavirus particles are in the 0.1-0.5 microns
range.
<https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/relative-size-of-particles-infographic.html>

That's about the sane as a variety of odour particles, such as smoke:
<https://www.coloradoci.com/bin-pdf/5270/ParticleSize.pdf>

[Tweed]

Post by Recliner

Post by Tweed

Post by Recliner

Post by Tweed

Post by Jeremy Double

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things being
used each day.

B******s! Masks reduce transmission of the virus, and the virus is
spreading faster at the moment, due to the delta variant. The numbers of
people in hospital with the disease is increasing and the number of deaths
is increasing. Any of us could be carrying the virus and not know it, so
wearing a mask reduces the risk of unknowingly passing it on.
If you’re worried about the environmental impact of masks, use a washable
one and put it in with the rest of your laundry.

Are we actually sure a non FFP3 mask does reduce the risk of passing the
virus on? The original premise was that a mask cut down the velocity of
exhaled air allowing blobs of goo to fall to the ground over a shorter
distance. Now it seems that the virus hangs around in fine particles in air
currents, much like cigarette smoke, you actually need to properly filter
the exhaled air to prevent the virus being launched into the environment.
It’s not obvious that anything other than FFP2/3 achieves that.
Another way of thinking about it is to imagine that the mask wearer is
exhaling cigarette smoke (or a vape vapour trail to be more modern) From
what I’ve seen of vape plumes being exhaled I would imagine that most non
FFP2/3 masks would be useless.

I think the test is whether the mask wearer can smell anything. For
example, can you smell the bakery in a supermarket? Can you smell petrol
and diesel in a filling station? Does a public loo smell unpleasant?
If the answer to any of those is "yes", then the mask isn't protecting you
from Covid.

I’m it entirely sure that’s true. Scent molecules are very small. Covid
particles are large by comparison.

They're in the same range. Coronavirus particles are in the 0.1-0.5 microns
range.
<https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/relative-size-of-particles-infographic.html>
<https://www.coloradoci.com/bin-pdf/5270/ParticleSize.pdf>

Smoke is very different to petrol vapours and presumably the volatile
chemicals added to supermarket ventilation when they have an in store
bakery. And smoke itself will have a wide distribution of particle sizes,
from volatile chemicals to ash residues. The other thing is that filter
material also uses electrostatic attraction to trap virus particles. I’m
not sure that all odour producing chemicals are so attracted.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Tweed

Post by Jeremy Double

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things being
used each day.

B******s! Masks reduce transmission of the virus, and the virus is
spreading faster at the moment, due to the delta variant. The numbers of
people in hospital with the disease is increasing and the number of deaths
is increasing. Any of us could be carrying the virus and not know it, so
wearing a mask reduces the risk of unknowingly passing it on.
If you’re worried about the environmental impact of masks, use a washable
one and put it in with the rest of your laundry.

Are we actually sure a non FFP3 mask does reduce the risk of passing the
virus on? The original premise was that a mask cut down the velocity of
exhaled air allowing blobs of goo to fall to the ground over a shorter
distance. Now it seems that the virus hangs around in fine particles in air
currents, much like cigarette smoke, you actually need to properly filter
the exhaled air to prevent the virus being launched into the environment.
It’s not obvious that anything other than FFP2/3 achieves that.
Another way of thinking about it is to imagine that the mask wearer is
exhaling cigarette smoke (or a vape vapour trail to be more modern) From
what I’ve seen of vape plumes being exhaled I would imagine that most non
FFP2/3 masks would be useless.

I think the test is whether the mask wearer can smell anything. For
example, can you smell the bakery in a supermarket? Can you smell petrol
and diesel in a filling station? Does a public loo smell unpleasant?
If the answer to any of those is "yes", then the mask isn't protecting you
from Covid.

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7447000/>

Note how smoke can be an order of magnitude smaller than Covid, and
Hydrogen Sulfide(sic) even smaller.

It doesn't mention AvGAS, but isn't that a vapour? Most studies are of
the exhaust, which is particles up to 40nm (approx Hepatitis B on the
table above).

[Jeremy Double]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Tweed

Post by Jeremy Double

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things being
used each day.

B******s! Masks reduce transmission of the virus, and the virus is
spreading faster at the moment, due to the delta variant. The numbers of
people in hospital with the disease is increasing and the number of deaths
is increasing. Any of us could be carrying the virus and not know it, so
wearing a mask reduces the risk of unknowingly passing it on.
If you’re worried about the environmental impact of masks, use a washable
one and put it in with the rest of your laundry.

Are we actually sure a non FFP3 mask does reduce the risk of passing the
virus on? The original premise was that a mask cut down the velocity of
exhaled air allowing blobs of goo to fall to the ground over a shorter
distance. Now it seems that the virus hangs around in fine particles in air
currents, much like cigarette smoke, you actually need to properly filter
the exhaled air to prevent the virus being launched into the environment.
It’s not obvious that anything other than FFP2/3 achieves that.
Another way of thinking about it is to imagine that the mask wearer is
exhaling cigarette smoke (or a vape vapour trail to be more modern) From
what I’ve seen of vape plumes being exhaled I would imagine that most non
FFP2/3 masks would be useless.

I think the test is whether the mask wearer can smell anything. For
example, can you smell the bakery in a supermarket? Can you smell petrol
and diesel in a filling station? Does a public loo smell unpleasant?
If the answer to any of those is "yes", then the mask isn't protecting you
from Covid.

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7447000/>
Note how smoke can be an order of magnitude smaller than Covid, and
Hydrogen Sulfide(sic) even smaller.

“Sulfide” is the IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry)
approved spelling, unfortunately. So that’s the spelling usually used in
scientific papers these days,

Post by Roland Perry
It doesn't mention AvGAS, but isn't that a vapour? Most studies are of
the exhaust, which is particles up to 40nm (approx Hepatitis B on the
table above).

[Roland Perry]

Post by Tweed

Post by Jeremy Double

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things being
used each day.

B******s! Masks reduce transmission of the virus, and the virus is
spreading faster at the moment, due to the delta variant. The numbers of
people in hospital with the disease is increasing and the number of deaths
is increasing. Any of us could be carrying the virus and not know it, so
wearing a mask reduces the risk of unknowingly passing it on.
If you’re worried about the environmental impact of masks, use a washable
one and put it in with the rest of your laundry.

Are we actually sure a non FFP3 mask does reduce the risk of passing the
virus on?

This is about droplets, but given the absolute faith some appear to have
in HEPA filters (and aerosol mitigation) are we sure that FPP2/3 masks
only adequately trap the former?

<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083>

Post by Tweed
The original premise was that a mask cut down the velocity of
exhaled air allowing blobs of goo to fall to the ground over a shorter
distance. Now it seems that the virus hangs around in fine particles in air
currents, much like cigarette smoke, you actually need to properly filter
the exhaled air to prevent the virus being launched into the environment.
It’s not obvious that anything other than FFP2/3 achieves that.
Another way of thinking about it is to imagine that the mask wearer is
exhaling cigarette smoke (or a vape vapour trail to be more modern) From
what I’ve seen of vape plumes being exhaled I would imagine that most non
FFP2/3 masks would be useless.

Very likely, especially when worn as chin-guards. The number I see on TV
reports of mask-wearing regimes don't appear to have qualms about
showing considerable numbers of wearers having their nose exposed (even
if their mouth is covered).

[Tweed]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tweed

Post by Jeremy Double

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things being
used each day.

B******s! Masks reduce transmission of the virus, and the virus is
spreading faster at the moment, due to the delta variant. The numbers of
people in hospital with the disease is increasing and the number of deaths
is increasing. Any of us could be carrying the virus and not know it, so
wearing a mask reduces the risk of unknowingly passing it on.
If you’re worried about the environmental impact of masks, use a washable
one and put it in with the rest of your laundry.

Are we actually sure a non FFP3 mask does reduce the risk of passing the
virus on?

This is about droplets, but given the absolute faith some appear to have
in HEPA filters (and aerosol mitigation) are we sure that FPP2/3 masks
only adequately trap the former?
<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083>

Post by Tweed
The original premise was that a mask cut down the velocity of
exhaled air allowing blobs of goo to fall to the ground over a shorter
distance. Now it seems that the virus hangs around in fine particles in air
currents, much like cigarette smoke, you actually need to properly filter
the exhaled air to prevent the virus being launched into the environment.
It’s not obvious that anything other than FFP2/3 achieves that.
Another way of thinking about it is to imagine that the mask wearer is
exhaling cigarette smoke (or a vape vapour trail to be more modern) From
what I’ve seen of vape plumes being exhaled I would imagine that most non
FFP2/3 masks would be useless.

Very likely, especially when worn as chin-guards. The number I see on TV
reports of mask-wearing regimes don't appear to have qualms about
showing considerable numbers of wearers having their nose exposed (even
if their mouth is covered).

It’s only been a small scale study, but the Cambridge (I think) study of
ward staff wearing FFP3 masks vs surgical masks did show staff infections
falling to zero.

[Recliner]

Post by Tweed

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tweed

Post by Jeremy Double

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things being
used each day.

B******s! Masks reduce transmission of the virus, and the virus is
spreading faster at the moment, due to the delta variant. The numbers of
people in hospital with the disease is increasing and the number of deaths
is increasing. Any of us could be carrying the virus and not know it, so
wearing a mask reduces the risk of unknowingly passing it on.
If you’re worried about the environmental impact of masks, use a washable
one and put it in with the rest of your laundry.

Are we actually sure a non FFP3 mask does reduce the risk of passing the
virus on?

This is about droplets, but given the absolute faith some appear to have
in HEPA filters (and aerosol mitigation) are we sure that FPP2/3 masks
only adequately trap the former?
<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083>

Post by Tweed
The original premise was that a mask cut down the velocity of
exhaled air allowing blobs of goo to fall to the ground over a shorter
distance. Now it seems that the virus hangs around in fine particles in air
currents, much like cigarette smoke, you actually need to properly filter
the exhaled air to prevent the virus being launched into the environment.
It’s not obvious that anything other than FFP2/3 achieves that.
Another way of thinking about it is to imagine that the mask wearer is
exhaling cigarette smoke (or a vape vapour trail to be more modern) From
what I’ve seen of vape plumes being exhaled I would imagine that most non
FFP2/3 masks would be useless.

Very likely, especially when worn as chin-guards. The number I see on TV
reports of mask-wearing regimes don't appear to have qualms about
showing considerable numbers of wearers having their nose exposed (even
if their mouth is covered).

It’s only been a small scale study, but the Cambridge (I think) study of
ward staff wearing FFP3 masks vs surgical masks did show staff infections
falling to zero.

With your masks, do the straps go round the back of your head, or the ears?
I think only the former can fit tightly enough to prevent air leaks. It's
noticeable that professional mask wearers in clinical surrounding do that,
whereas most members of the public don't.

[Tweed]

Post by Recliner

Post by Tweed

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tweed

Post by Jeremy Double

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things being
used each day.

B******s! Masks reduce transmission of the virus, and the virus is
spreading faster at the moment, due to the delta variant. The numbers of
people in hospital with the disease is increasing and the number of deaths
is increasing. Any of us could be carrying the virus and not know it, so
wearing a mask reduces the risk of unknowingly passing it on.
If you’re worried about the environmental impact of masks, use a washable
one and put it in with the rest of your laundry.

Are we actually sure a non FFP3 mask does reduce the risk of passing the
virus on?

This is about droplets, but given the absolute faith some appear to have
in HEPA filters (and aerosol mitigation) are we sure that FPP2/3 masks
only adequately trap the former?
<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083>

Post by Tweed
The original premise was that a mask cut down the velocity of
exhaled air allowing blobs of goo to fall to the ground over a shorter
distance. Now it seems that the virus hangs around in fine particles in air
currents, much like cigarette smoke, you actually need to properly filter
the exhaled air to prevent the virus being launched into the environment.
It’s not obvious that anything other than FFP2/3 achieves that.
Another way of thinking about it is to imagine that the mask wearer is
exhaling cigarette smoke (or a vape vapour trail to be more modern) From
what I’ve seen of vape plumes being exhaled I would imagine that most non
FFP2/3 masks would be useless.

Very likely, especially when worn as chin-guards. The number I see on TV
reports of mask-wearing regimes don't appear to have qualms about
showing considerable numbers of wearers having their nose exposed (even
if their mouth is covered).

It’s only been a small scale study, but the Cambridge (I think) study of
ward staff wearing FFP3 masks vs surgical masks did show staff infections
falling to zero.

With your masks, do the straps go round the back of your head, or the ears?
I think only the former can fit tightly enough to prevent air leaks. It's
noticeable that professional mask wearers in clinical surrounding do that,
whereas most members of the public don't.

Yes, two straps round the back of the head. See
https://www.medisave.co.uk/ffp3-face-mask-x20.html Click on the second
thumbnail picture. Unfortunately they seem to be out of stock at the
moment.

[m***@round-midnight.org.uk]

Post by Tweed

Post by Recliner

Post by Tweed

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tweed

Post by Jeremy Double

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things being
used each day.

B******s! Masks reduce transmission of the virus, and the virus is
spreading faster at the moment, due to the delta variant. The numbers of
people in hospital with the disease is increasing and the number of deaths
is increasing. Any of us could be carrying the virus and not know it, so
wearing a mask reduces the risk of unknowingly passing it on.
If you’re worried about the environmental impact of masks, use a washable
one and put it in with the rest of your laundry.

Are we actually sure a non FFP3 mask does reduce the risk of passing the
virus on?

This is about droplets, but given the absolute faith some appear to have
in HEPA filters (and aerosol mitigation) are we sure that FPP2/3 masks
only adequately trap the former?
<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083>

Post by Tweed
The original premise was that a mask cut down the velocity of
exhaled air allowing blobs of goo to fall to the ground over a shorter
distance. Now it seems that the virus hangs around in fine particles in air
currents, much like cigarette smoke, you actually need to properly filter
the exhaled air to prevent the virus being launched into the environment.
It’s not obvious that anything other than FFP2/3 achieves that.
Another way of thinking about it is to imagine that the mask wearer is
exhaling cigarette smoke (or a vape vapour trail to be more modern) From
what I’ve seen of vape plumes being exhaled I would imagine that most non
FFP2/3 masks would be useless.

Very likely, especially when worn as chin-guards. The number I see on TV
reports of mask-wearing regimes don't appear to have qualms about
showing considerable numbers of wearers having their nose exposed (even
if their mouth is covered).

It’s only been a small scale study, but the Cambridge (I think) study of
ward staff wearing FFP3 masks vs surgical masks did show staff infections
falling to zero.

With your masks, do the straps go round the back of your head, or the ears?
I think only the former can fit tightly enough to prevent air leaks. It's
noticeable that professional mask wearers in clinical surrounding do that,
whereas most members of the public don't.

Yes, two straps round the back of the head. See
https://www.medisave.co.uk/ffp3-face-mask-x20.html Click on the second
thumbnail picture. Unfortunately they seem to be out of stock at the
moment.

One of the GPs at my surgery recommends paper-clips as an alternative.

[Tweed]

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk

Post by Tweed

Post by Recliner

Post by Tweed

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tweed

Post by Jeremy Double

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things being
used each day.

B******s! Masks reduce transmission of the virus, and the virus is
spreading faster at the moment, due to the delta variant. The numbers of
people in hospital with the disease is increasing and the number of deaths
is increasing. Any of us could be carrying the virus and not know it, so
wearing a mask reduces the risk of unknowingly passing it on.
If you’re worried about the environmental impact of masks, use a washable
one and put it in with the rest of your laundry.

Are we actually sure a non FFP3 mask does reduce the risk of passing the
virus on?

This is about droplets, but given the absolute faith some appear to have
in HEPA filters (and aerosol mitigation) are we sure that FPP2/3 masks
only adequately trap the former?
<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083>

Post by Tweed
The original premise was that a mask cut down the velocity of
exhaled air allowing blobs of goo to fall to the ground over a shorter
distance. Now it seems that the virus hangs around in fine particles in air
currents, much like cigarette smoke, you actually need to properly filter
the exhaled air to prevent the virus being launched into the environment.
It’s not obvious that anything other than FFP2/3 achieves that.
Another way of thinking about it is to imagine that the mask wearer is
exhaling cigarette smoke (or a vape vapour trail to be more modern) From
what I’ve seen of vape plumes being exhaled I would imagine that most non
FFP2/3 masks would be useless.

Very likely, especially when worn as chin-guards. The number I see on TV
reports of mask-wearing regimes don't appear to have qualms about
showing considerable numbers of wearers having their nose exposed (even
if their mouth is covered).

It’s only been a small scale study, but the Cambridge (I think) study of
ward staff wearing FFP3 masks vs surgical masks did show staff infections
falling to zero.

With your masks, do the straps go round the back of your head, or the ears?
I think only the former can fit tightly enough to prevent air leaks. It's
noticeable that professional mask wearers in clinical surrounding do that,
whereas most members of the public don't.

Yes, two straps round the back of the head. See
https://www.medisave.co.uk/ffp3-face-mask-x20.html Click on the second
thumbnail picture. Unfortunately they seem to be out of stock at the
moment.

One of the GPs at my surgery recommends paper-clips as an alternative.

Across the nostrils and lips? :)

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Tweed

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tweed

Post by Jeremy Double

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things being
used each day.

B******s! Masks reduce transmission of the virus, and the virus is
spreading faster at the moment, due to the delta variant. The numbers of
people in hospital with the disease is increasing and the number of deaths
is increasing. Any of us could be carrying the virus and not know it, so
wearing a mask reduces the risk of unknowingly passing it on.
If you’re worried about the environmental impact of masks, use a washable
one and put it in with the rest of your laundry.

Are we actually sure a non FFP3 mask does reduce the risk of passing the
virus on?

This is about droplets, but given the absolute faith some appear to have
in HEPA filters (and aerosol mitigation) are we sure that FPP2/3 masks
only adequately trap the former?
<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083>

Post by Tweed
The original premise was that a mask cut down the velocity of
exhaled air allowing blobs of goo to fall to the ground over a shorter
distance. Now it seems that the virus hangs around in fine particles in air
currents, much like cigarette smoke, you actually need to properly filter
the exhaled air to prevent the virus being launched into the environment.
It’s not obvious that anything other than FFP2/3 achieves that.
Another way of thinking about it is to imagine that the mask wearer is
exhaling cigarette smoke (or a vape vapour trail to be more modern) From
what I’ve seen of vape plumes being exhaled I would imagine that most non
FFP2/3 masks would be useless.

Very likely, especially when worn as chin-guards. The number I see on TV
reports of mask-wearing regimes don't appear to have qualms about
showing considerable numbers of wearers having their nose exposed (even
if their mouth is covered).

It’s only been a small scale study, but the Cambridge (I think) study of
ward staff wearing FFP3 masks vs surgical masks did show staff infections
falling to zero.

With your masks, do the straps go round the back of your head, or the ears?
I think only the former can fit tightly enough to prevent air leaks. It's
noticeable that professional mask wearers in clinical surrounding do that,
whereas most members of the public don't.

Mine have quite short and fierce ear straps. Short because the natural
conical shape of the mask already reaches more than halfway.

I'm wearing it to protect me, and leakage would have to be from air
circulating just in front of my ears which is quite a circuitous route.
compared to through the any/all of the conical material itself.

It's not a "gas mask", nor am I going near anyone with confirmed Covid.
These masks are better than the blue surgical ones, and far better than
nothing.

[m***@round-midnight.org.uk]

Post by Tweed

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tweed

Post by Jeremy Double

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things being
used each day.

B******s! Masks reduce transmission of the virus, and the virus is
spreading faster at the moment, due to the delta variant. The numbers of
people in hospital with the disease is increasing and the number of deaths
is increasing. Any of us could be carrying the virus and not know it, so
wearing a mask reduces the risk of unknowingly passing it on.
If you’re worried about the environmental impact of masks, use a washable
one and put it in with the rest of your laundry.

Are we actually sure a non FFP3 mask does reduce the risk of passing the
virus on?

This is about droplets, but given the absolute faith some appear to have
in HEPA filters (and aerosol mitigation) are we sure that FPP2/3 masks
only adequately trap the former?
<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083>

Post by Tweed
The original premise was that a mask cut down the velocity of
exhaled air allowing blobs of goo to fall to the ground over a shorter
distance. Now it seems that the virus hangs around in fine particles in air
currents, much like cigarette smoke, you actually need to properly filter
the exhaled air to prevent the virus being launched into the environment.
It’s not obvious that anything other than FFP2/3 achieves that.
Another way of thinking about it is to imagine that the mask wearer is
exhaling cigarette smoke (or a vape vapour trail to be more modern) From
what I’ve seen of vape plumes being exhaled I would imagine that most non
FFP2/3 masks would be useless.

Very likely, especially when worn as chin-guards. The number I see on TV
reports of mask-wearing regimes don't appear to have qualms about
showing considerable numbers of wearers having their nose exposed (even
if their mouth is covered).

It’s only been a small scale study, but the Cambridge (I think) study of
ward staff wearing FFP3 masks vs surgical masks did show staff infections
falling to zero.

It did:-
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/upgrading-ppe-for-staff-working-on-covid-19-wards-cut-hospital-acquired-infections-dramatically

[Roland Perry]

In message <1250476406.648192036.548032.jmd.nospam-***@news.i
ndividual.net>, at 05:26:15 on Sat, 17 Jul 2021, Jeremy Double

Post by Jeremy Double

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things being
used each day.

B******s! Masks reduce transmission of the virus, and the virus is
spreading faster at the moment, due to the delta variant.

And in the news today, concern about the Beta variant (nee South
African) arriving from France. Apparently the AZ vaccine doesn't give
much protection (not something I'd heard before).

Anyway, a roundup here:

<https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-
magazine/news/coronavirus-and-your-health/covid-variant>

Including news that one jab of either vaccine is only 33% effective
against Delta (unlike some assertions flying around).

Post by Jeremy Double
The numbers of
people in hospital with the disease is increasing and the number of deaths
is increasing. Any of us could be carrying the virus and not know it, so
wearing a mask reduces the risk of unknowingly passing it on.
If you’re worried about the environmental impact of masks, use a washable
one and put it in with the rest of your laundry.

Compared to all the other environmental consequences of Covid (and long
Covid), disposing of a few masks is like brushing the dust off the
chairs you just rearranged on the deck of the Titanic.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry
ndividual.net>, at 05:26:15 on Sat, 17 Jul 2021, Jeremy Double

Post by Jeremy Double

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things being
used each day.

B******s! Masks reduce transmission of the virus, and the virus is
spreading faster at the moment, due to the delta variant.

And in the news today, concern about the Beta variant (nee South
African) arriving from France. Apparently the AZ vaccine doesn't give
much protection (not something I'd heard before).

It's been known for nearly six months, and caused South Africa to reject
the AZ vaccine in February:
<https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n372>

Even the BBC covered it at the time:
Covid: South Africa halts AstraZeneca vaccine rollout over new variant
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-55975052>

The AZ booster shot that is now being trialled was specifically designed to
correct this deficiency.
<https://pharmaphorum.com/news/az-starts-phase-2-3-trial-of-new-variant-covid-19-vaccine/>

And the Novavax vaccine is effective against the beta variant, though it
too will have a new booster version aimed at the beta variant:
<https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/novavax-beta-vaccine-covid/>

[M***@ni0t_9lrfb2e6l88_8xrnev.net]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 09:39:58 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jeremy Double
The numbers of
people in hospital with the disease is increasing and the number of deaths
is increasing. Any of us could be carrying the virus and not know it, so
wearing a mask reduces the risk of unknowingly passing it on.
If you’re worried about the environmental impact of masks, use a washable
one and put it in with the rest of your laundry.

Compared to all the other environmental consequences of Covid (and long
Covid), disposing of a few masks is like brushing the dust off the
chairs you just rearranged on the deck of the Titanic.

Wrong. The other medical waste ends up in landfill or incinerated. Masks
get tossed into the street, bushes, rivers by all these neurotic idiots.
But never mind the enviroment, lets all freak out about a not very dangerous
virus and screw the consequences.

[M***@bmj0.net]

On 17 Jul 2021 05:26:15 GMT

Post by Jeremy Double

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:20:36 +0100

Post by NY
There is a simple solution to all this: carry on wearing your mask in a
public place.

There's an even simpler solution - don't. Masks are not solving any problem
now other than making neurotics feel secure, they're simply adding to a huge
waste and pollution problem with 100s of millions of the fucking things

being

used each day.

B******s! Masks reduce transmission of the virus, and the virus is
spreading faster at the moment, due to the delta variant. The numbers of

Oh noooos! Not the delta variant! Sorry , you're behind the times , you need
to start panicking about the beta (south african) variant.

Post by Jeremy Double
people in hospital with the disease is increasing and the number of deaths
is increasing. Any of us could be carrying the virus and not know it, so
wearing a mask reduces the risk of unknowingly passing it on.

And what? This virus will continue to mutate forever. You wet the bed about it
if you want.

Post by Jeremy Double
If you’re worried about the environmental impact of masks, use a washable
one and put it in with the rest of your laundry.

I don't use any, full stop.