Masks Will Stay on London Transport for “As Long as the Virus Is Still With Us”, Says Sadiq Khan
London commuters hoping to return to normality after July 19th are in for disappointment, as Sadiq Khan says face masks will remain compulsory on transport networks within the city beyond “Freedom Day” and for “as long as the virus is still with us”. London is the first city to announce that it will continue mandating mask-wearing after this date. Greater Manchester looks set to be the next, with Mayor Andy Burnham refusing to “rule out” keeping restrictions. BBC News has the story.
Sadiq Khan said he was not prepared to put Tube, tram and other transport users at risk by relaxing the rules on face coverings.
Face masks have been mandatory on public transport for the past year to reduce the spread of the virus.
But those rules will be replaced with Government guidance advising passengers to wear masks only on busy services.
England is removing most of its Covid restrictions next Monday, and while Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said he expects masks to be worn in crowded places, such as on a busy Tube train, their use will no longer be compulsory.
But Mr Khan has gone further and made it a condition of carriage for the Tube, bus, tram, DLR, Overground and TfL Rail.
This means that, despite the easing of restrictions on July 19th, it will be listed as a condition in a legal agreement between TfL and its customers.
Mr Khan said: “We know from the Government’s own advisors and from the World Health Organisation, that wearing a face covering indoors does reduce transmissions.
“It leads to greater public safety and greater public confidence as well.
“As long as the virus is still with us, and as long as we’re still concerned about the virus being transmitted, we will make it compulsory.”
He said he was “confident you will see from Monday high levels of the rules being followed just like there have been since last June”.
TfL’s 400 enforcement officers will deny those without a face covering from using London transport, under the plan.
TfL staff and bus drivers will continue to remind passengers that masks are a requirement, Mr Khan said.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: Transport Secretary Grant Shapps told Times Radio this morning that Sadiq Khan’s decision “makes sense”. He is quoted in the Guardian:
We expect carriers to provide rules or what we call conditions of carriage appropriate to their own circumstances. And obviously, London Underground is a particularly crowded network. And, of course, we said people should wear masks in crowded areas. So just in the same way as the airlines have made it a stipulation – an ongoing stipulation – we expected – indeed invited TfL – to do the same thing. So no surprises there. And if you think about it, it makes sense.
Also worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
None of this happens, I never wear a mask on any transport – I don’t hear a peep. 2 times I have been asked for a mask “I’m exempt” has met no resistance.
I’m actually seeing more and more normal faces too as a matter of fact. The above sounds as though they will no longer allow exemptions. I carry one of those poxy badges but I never wear it. I will be giving whichever womble dares challenging me a mouthful though.
Presumably as this is no longer in line with law/guidelines and is a condition of carriage, exemptions are no longer allowed?
Sadiq has spoken (on LBC) and exemptions are allowed
Good to know. So it is up to individual businesses and I see from the other comments, between business and customer, not something the police can enforce, unless you are asked to leave and refuse.
So, basically, you don’t have to wear a mask!
The devil is always in the details.
What exemptions, and what evidential requirements?
They’d be breaking disability law otherwise.
I am allergic to masks, they bring on a very violent reaction if I am forced to wear one. I think my violence is more of a risk to you than the very (to the power of 6 at least) unlikely risk of infection.
I don’t wear masks and I’d prefer you didn’t it’s weird and creepy. Your violence is no risk to me, knock yourself out though buddy, plenty of zombies out there
It was a lighthearted response. I am a very peaceful person and I do not wear masks. When asked, I simply say I don’t wear masks, and that has sufficed with everyone so far.
The only difficult I have had was last month at a petrol station in the Yorkshire Dales, with an open door and 10 ft between it and a cashier cowering behind a screen – shouting mask, not asking; and last year at a pub near Hereford, where the, to me, lighthearted quip that I’d throw my inhaler at her was met with an assumption that I was about to commit an assault. In both instances females of mature years who ought to have known better.
There are a lot of these women. My local medical centre and the pharmacy, in my case. Petty jobsworths with a power complex.
I’m very peaceful too but it’s that allergic reaction to masks, very worrying. Must go and see my Doctor. Oh forgot you can’t see your Doctor currently. Oh well just have to struggle on I suppose.
Yes I have the same allergic reaction.
One of the exemptions is if wearing a mask would cause you “severe distress” https://tfl.gov.uk/campaign/face-coverings
The sight of massed muzzleoids causes me very severe distress, but not quite as much distress as the sight of Sadist Khon.
Good luck with that Sadiq. I haven’t worn a mask on the Tube yet and am not about to start now. Never been challenged by either staff, police or public. So what does he think is going to change now?
What might change is that masks will become a symbol of what side you’re on in this war and as more people refuse to wear them, the other side will get increasingly intolerant. At present there seem to be very few bare faces so it’s not really noticed and not a threat. When there are more, it will get their attention and they may be tempted to enforce it or risk looking foolish.
When that happens, there will be pushback, and people will get hurt on both sides.
That’s what those pushing these totalitarian policies are responsible for.
Yes, I can see this getting even more uncomfortable, one way or another, a bit like the vaccine divide.
Time after time I read that there will be a pushback or some sort of line crossed but depressingly I have seen no sign of any meaningful resistance at all. The sight of maskless folk at the football, tennis and cricket gives me a bit of hope but not much.
There have been pushbacks over the last months already. I have experienced it personally. They are coming overwhelmingly from the masked against the unmasked and ranged from giving me the evils through to verbal abuse and even threatened violence. I am a person who uses only reasoned arguments but that seems to provoke them more than if I stooped to their level
I suggest simply pretending they are not even there when they speak. just stare right through them and say nothing
Difficult for me as when challenged I think I am back in court and make speeches
That’s a good idea.
I have not noticed if I am getting evils or not. I wear dark glasses and listen to podcasts. Quite happy in my own little world.
It’s all about the numbers, of course.
There has been pushback, but often isolated and rarely effective.
Do a search on something like “man punch wear mask” (without the quotes) and you’ll see plenty of reports of the kinds of violence – in both directions – this divisive and illiberal policy has caused.
yes, piers morgan
Doubt it. Zombies are cowards.
The trouble is, cowards easily get violent when they are scared, if they think the target is smaller than they are. Consider this thug:
“Police said the victim is in his 60s and his mother, who is in her 90s, is hard of hearing.
As the pensioner removed his face covering to speak to her, the suspect came up behind him and demanded that he put his mask back on, police said.
He then punched the man in the face, leaving him with a bruised eye.”
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-man-punched-in-face-after-removing-mask-to-speak-to-elderly-mother-on-tram-12108419
More than that. It’s what they want. Violence. Then it can be framed by MSM to be solely the fault of the unmasked/unvaxxed.
I suppose that is possible but I have never experienced a challenge yet, apart from death stares, when perhaps people would have felt braver to do so with virtually everyone wearing a mask. If more people are not wearing masks I cannot see them suddenly becoming braver. My worry is that it might become chaotic and the government will reintoduce mandatory masks in the name of ‘clarity’. A bit of me believes that this is the strategy.
Yes, it may be the strategy or it may be what happens
Yep, I think most of the napped up are cowardly. They’ve fallen in line, you haven’t, for whatever reason, and being in the minority shows YOU are not afraid. I’ve ballsed it out over the last year with no problem from mask wearers. In fact if I’m honest, some have struck up conversations with me. They seemed to like my bravado which they haven’t got! Of course I’ve had the laser stares, too but that’s as far as it goes. A lot of the napped just LOVE their naps now, like a comfort blanket to hide behind. They’re not going to be challenging anyone either. Let’s all hold our nerves, stand strong and see what actually happens.
I’ve taken to death-staring right back – can’t help myself. In fact, I’ve taken to getting my death stare in first. Feels like I’m looking at Nazi collaborators in the 1930s, and if that doesn’t warrant contempt I don’t know what does. . .
Return the sign of the cross and smile at them
pityingly.
That ain’t gonna happen. It’s a ridiculous suggestion in fact. The masked have been cowardly sheep from the start, they aren’t suddenly going to become emboldened and turn into raging lions because there are MORE people unmasked.
Yes I think the freedom not to wear a mask is likely to be divisive and result in public unpleasantness and even violence. Simply because more people will now not wear them so the ones that do will become afraid, angry and confrontational
I would like to add my experience of living in The Netherlands to this conversation. On June 26th when the masks became optional in shops, the percent of bare-faced went overnight from 5% to 90%. When almost everyone was masked I wasn’t sure it was obedience or bedwetting. Now I know, the majority was simply following rules. I’d never been challenged for not wearing a mask before. Now that the masked zombies are in a tiny minority, they just shuffle their feet without even daring to lift their eyes. I strongly suspect this will be the case in England come next Monday.
I’d like to hope that a similar phenomenon will happen here in the UK.
I think you are correct in your assessment of people’s compliance with the mask rules. In that respect I think many English people are similar in “following the rules”. The only difference is that here in Britain we have a certain category of employee (in both the public and private sector) we call “JobsWorths” – as in “It’s more than my job’s worth to let you ride this bus without a mask on…”
I don’t know if the JobsWorth is a purely English character. But he’s a character I find particularly distasteful.
The insolence of office…
Yup, ‘little Hitlers’ my Dad used to call them, a term that hasn’t been more appropriate since the originals. . .
Garf – good on you.
I walked into a heavily patrolled Sainsbury’s I don’t normally frequent yesterday, immediately snarled at, “put a mask on Sir” stared straight back and uttered the single word “exempt” as I entered. I then heard the prole say to their cohort “getting a lot of that lately”
Right made my morning.
Perhaps the penny will drop eventually
Same thing happened to Hub going into Sainsburys the other day. He was snarled at too, but he had his silly card ready, and he just marched straight past her, not looking at her, card held high above his 6.2 high head, not looking back either. Job done.
Enforcement consists solely of telling you you cannot board the transport or have to get off. Bus drivers will not want confrontation and will just play that little recording they have asking you to wear a mask. Tube trains – well if a guard comes through you say you have an exemption – end of story. Unlikely the guard will want confrontation either. The good thing is not wearing a mask is not a crime punishable by a fine any more. Rejoice!
“as long as the virus is still with us”
Elect idiots like Sadiq Khan, get idiocy in government. It ain’t rocket science…
Indeed, Mark. Why not “as long as we face threats like the common cold”? Or maybe “as long as all that dangerous nitrogen is in the atmosphere” (sounds more scientific, see)?
Don’t forget about the immense threat from dihydrogen oxide in the atmosphere. It’s responsible for something like 80% of the greenhouse effect!
That vile stuff is everywhere, it’s like someone turned a tap on…
Yeah, and it’s responsible for all flooding as well. Seriously dangerous stuff!
Yes, it’s terrifying that stuff, things just DISSOLVE in it.
More, I rather suspect, since there is (on average) about 25 times more of it than CO2 and it has a far wider absorption spectrum. . .
So essentially it is a zero covid policy even though it is impossible.
It’s masks forever, basically.
Tories put in as opposition to him some African bloke. They didn’t really bother to show up
Well the virus will always be with us, forever. So, masks forever on public transport? Is that what he is suggesting?
cunt.
I think he is. I am not sure why. Not to stop the virus as they don’t work. Hmmm.
He has to play his NWO puppet masters game otherwise he could be run over by a bus or fall off an underground platform.
Until the Covid Act is repealed then nothing will change, they can make up the “rules” as they go along. Until the Act is repealed don’t believe them.
Most of the restrictions are not part of the Coronavirus Act but are Statutory Instruments attached to the Public Health Act 1984. It’s that act that needs repealing or amending so that it cannot be used for blanket restrictions, which was not what it was intended for. But that’s not going to happen.
Anyway, mask mandates imposed by businesses and organisations don’t need legislation to enforce them. It would generally be a civil matter between the customer and the business/organisation.
Yep, so legally unenforceable. The worst that can happen is you get kicked out. No police involved unless they want to call them for trespass
reverse the argument – like asking a Christian baker to bake a cake for a rabid LGBTQWERTY type against the baker’s beliefs…..commercial enterprises simply cannot infringe a persons rights under the Equality Act 2010. Already multiple test cases where the full £9000 penalty and £7000 costs have been found for the plaintiff
I’m not convinced that any court would find lockdown/mask scepticism to be any kind of defence under the Equality Act.
No, but many people cannot wear a mask because of a protected characteristic, which very much is within the purview of the Equality Act
Possibly. I’m not sure who though.
Anyone whose justification is a diagnosed medical condition (physical or mental).
I actually know someone who was sexually assaulted once, and she has never worn a mask, as apparently her attacker covered her mouth, so it really causes her distress. thankfully she managed to get away but it has obviously caused her immense emotional damage. I think in those scenarios, yes, that’s a legit exemption. But i doubt anyone is going to challenge beyond “i’m exempt”. there has never been a need to discuss your exemption – it has always been to ensure the premises are doing their bit. if you say you are exempt, they’re covered,
i went to pizza express recently, and had no mask. the guy said “i assume you are exempt, sir”. haha, nicely done my friend.
Is it a fervently held belief – like there are two genders? In that case it is protected.
I don’t think the courts would recognise a fervently held belief that masks don’t work or that imposing them is wrong on principle
‘Severe distress’ is.
The equality act is based on immutable characteristics.
the bigger question here is whether there will still be exemptions as there has been. seems like basically nothing will change
I expect some kind of exemptions will still be adopted by most, probably based on the govts arbitrary and legally IMO meaningless wording – the path of least resistance.
Enforcement will mainly be by peer pressure, bullying and threats
well speaking as a person who looks like someone you would not want to fuck with, I think i’ll survive that.
Police don’t enforce civil/common law, only criminal law
precisely. but the transport police can remove you from the premises. a tfl member of staff cant
The police do not get involved in civil matters so would not respond
There is another chance for repeal in September. But I doubt it will happen. In March 2022 because there is a sunset clause, the Coronavirus Act simply dies! It will be interesting to see if they put another one through Parliament as a workaround
There is a sunset clause so that the Coronavirus Act expires automatically in March 2022
And you don’t expect an act to extend it?
Could someone please produce a bar chart as attached but with all the years unmarked and mixed up, print it on a postcard with the question ‘Spot the ‘pandemic’ years?’
That postcard should be sent to everyone in Parliament, top civil servants, managing directors, board directors of major companies…….etc etc
This is all now beyond silly……well off the scale nutty….
I did one a while back for 2020 (the answer is E)
Too good! Thank you very much indeed.
Londoners lets not take this. Flood the tube on the 19th no masks no bullshit. Spread the message.
#floodthetube
When I visit London, that’s where I see the least compliance with the mask mandates.
Not my part of South London where mask compliance is I estimate at least 95%
In the countryside where I am, it is almost 100%. In London, yes, it’s quite high, but there’s always at least one person who’s ignoring the rules.
Can’t say that where I am, although, it is getting a little better here.
In the countryside? That about sums up the insanity.
I’m over in east london/essex borders, and there are zero fucks given here. id say 50/50 in some shops. i always make a point of smiling and saying hello to the security guard, too 🙂
If any of you fancy taking ten minutes to forget about all this bollocks, this video is amazing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy7NzjCmUf0
I did and I recommend it for getting things in perspective for at least a few minutes
yep, really helps doesnt it? ten minutes of bliss
I mean, you might think it’s a long way to the chemist’s, but . . .
Wow! Just wow. I knew much of it already, but learnt a bit more. How insignificant do I feel right now though? 🤣
Another downright (was going to say barefaced but not in this case!) lie. There is no evidence that non medical masks, worn by untrained people in non medical environments have any beneficial effect. There is in fact huge evidence to the contrary. Can’t this lie be challenged in court as fraud? Possibly even Malfeasance in Public Office?
London elected the idiot. Therefore they should get it good and hard.
What I don’t see on any side of this debate is anybody mentioning the obvious elephant in the room.
Why does everybody need to wear a mask? If you wear an inward filtration mask, then you don’t need anybody else to weak a mask. Since you like wearing masks, just get a good one and learn how to use it.
Therefore there has to be more to this. The masking of others has to be satisfying some psychological illness in these nutjobs.
more than that, if the vaccines work – why do you need a mask? seriously no even asks
The response to that can be seen in the comments from the FT pages. Remember these people are hysterical.
https://www.ft.com/content/897bb179-af82-47cf-ac25-69d60edaa0b8 …
That’s from a doctor.
there is no hope. literally no hope.
Any doctor who thinks that a mask makes a positive difference should retire or have his license revoked.
Mask wearing has certain, many and very, very serious negative medical side effects.
You have to worry about all those surgeons who have been wearing masks most of the working day as part of their job for years.
Changed frequently and used in a highly oxygenated environments but still, can’t be pleasant.
It is a myth that operating theatres are highly oxygenated. They are at a slightly higher pressure than the surrounding environment to prevent bacteria entering but the proportion of oxygen is the same as usual. There is some confusion because there is a concern that oxygen may gather under the drapes covering the patient.
Surgeons wear masks for duration of the operation which may be many hours – far longer than a citizen would normally wear one without removing it.
They CHOOSE to be a surgeon. And masks are worn for a different purpose. But don’t let facts get in the way.
The question was – why don’t they get sick from wearing masks? It is irrelevant whether they chose to be a surgeon or why they are wearing the masks.
As it happens they wear masks to prevent infection from themselves to the patient and in some cases vice versa which is the same reason the public are being asked to wear masks in certain contexts.
Bacteria NOT virus. Its totally different, but unless you live under a stone you know this, its been discussed endlessly.
And people are being coerced against their will to wear useless masks, surgeons wear them in a profession they chose to follow.
To repeat – the question was – why don’t they get sick from wearing masks? .
The issue of bacteria vs viruses is completely different and, as yo say, the subject of endless discussion. There is quite a lot of evidence that masks stop the transmission of viruses and other evidence (and theoretical arguments) that they do not.
There is no such evidence. What there is is a lot of garbage studies, paid for by the special interests, put out in the last year that suggest masks might stop the transmission of viruses, maybe effective at preventing the spread of coronavirus and could be effective at lowering coronavirus cases
Of course, all this is contradicted by the fact that cases continued to rise despite the implementation of universal mask mandates, which the usual suspects have blamed on people not following the guidelines, even though they’re impossible for everyone to follow 100%
I am trying to work out what special interest groups would want to fund research designed to fool people into wearing masks when they don’t want to. Mask manufacturers perhaps? Who would have thought they were so influential – even getting to the US National Academy of Sciences.
Just because you can’t think of a reason doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
More lies – see Emmerich for a quick (but accurate) precis.
And how come 40 years of scientific research, including a number of RCTs, concluded that general mask wearing was NOT effective or desirable for general use got suddenly reversed after a couple of (highly dodgy) observational studies and a video concerning droplets? And why did this happen just as mask mandates were being lobbied? Why are ALL the pro-mask studies from 2020/21? Why were shop workers not dispropirtionally affected before mask mandates, but (it is claimed) they are now? And how do you know that surgeons do not feel ill, get ill, or have not caused themselves long-term damage? How do you know that bronchial problems assumed to be covid aren’t, in fact, bacterial infections, since a (meaninless) PCR +ve is all the testing done? Where are the in-depth stodies of long-term mask wearers’ lungs or bronchial tracts? The ‘science’ is, yet again, utterly shocking
Why do surgeons wear masks?
To stop hair and skin from making their way into open wounds? Also I suspect to stop blood splashing into their mouth.
https://clinmedjournals.org/articles/jide/journal-of-infectious-diseases-and-epidemiology-jide-6-130.php?jid=jide
Surgeons are dealing with open wounds and cannot risk bacteria infecting said wounds. Masks prevent bacteria spread, but not viruses which are much smaller. They are also surgical grade masks and once on cannot be touched. If the surgeon does touch it then it has to be replaced. Now compare that to what you see with the general public and their filthy face rags.
there was actually a study done that showed that, even in surgery, masks dont really do much for the patient or the surgeon. but better safe than sorry, so may as well keep them
Agreed but that wasn’t the point of the discussion – which was the claim that:
Mask wearing has certain, many and very, very serious negative medical side effects.
(A little Googling reveals that there have been several studies on the effectiveness of surgical masks. I suspect none of us knows the latest situation)
Fair comment.
How about this:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2781743
Now, all that said, I am not going to pretend this is about health for me. I fucking hate masks and everything they symbolise, and there is no evidence for their benefit. So that’s why I refuse to wear one. If they hurt some people, ok, well, whatever, but that’s certainly not my reason.
There have been so many studies of different aspects of mask wearing it is very easy to find one to support your position pro or con.
I agree they are annoying to wear – mostly because my glasses steam up! What do you think masks symbolise? For me they symbolise consideration for others. It is a matter of dispute as to how much good they do. But even if they did no good, I live in a place where many local people are elderly and feel more comfortable if the people round them are wearing masks.
To me they symbolise the lies, the fear mongering, and the idiocy of this entire pandemic. I have no issue with others wearing masks if they feel unsafe, but I personally dont think it is reasonable to expect people to wear masks just to make others feel “safe”, whatever that means
Well I guess that is just a matter of different values and maybe the different places we live. Consideration for the elderly and nervous is very big here and there is no public transport to speak of – so wearing a mask mostly amounts to wearing one when shopping.
I used to work in a rock bar in a busy town centre and we had lots of big biker types wearing leather jackets, they had tattoos, long hair, the lot. They were the most considerate customers we had, but tended not to give one about what others thought. Outside the pub other people would cross the road to avoid them or avoid eye contact and we had several comments from local shops about customers feeling intimidated – simply because they bought into the media stereotype of bikers and were not prepared to listen to any other point of view that required them to rethink. They had been conditioned to believe a certain viewpoint even though it was completely false. Sound familiar? Bikers/rockers were bad. Fact. Should our customers have come to the pub in a suit and cut their hair out of consideration of other people’s paranoia? Incidentally, I live in a small village with a lot of elderly people and hardly any of them are nervous about maskless people- quite the opposite.
No! Your mask wearing and imposition makes me feel extremely uncomfortable. Your ‘consideration’ seems to be rather less than universal.
“I agree they are annoying to wear – mostly because my glasses steam up!”
What does that tell you about their effectiveness at stopping the distribution of infected aerosols.
” I live in a place where many local people are elderly and feel more comfortable if the people round them are wearing masks.”
Why don’t they wear FFP3 masks if they are scared. Then they will feel completely comfortable without bothering anybody else.
We cannot run a country by pandering to the perennially petrified. History has shown us countless times that appeasement never works.
What does that tell you about their effectiveness at stopping the distribution of infected aerosols.
Nothing. Does it tell you something?
Why don’t they wear FFP3 masks if they are scared. Then they will feel completely comfortable without bothering anybody else.
We cannot run a country by pandering to the perennially petrified. History has shown us countless times that appeasement never works.
The idea that I am appeasing an 80 year old lady by wearing a mask to make her feel more comfortable is ridiculous. It is analogous to not being rowdy on a train. Everyone has a legal right to do it, but it can make other passengers feel threatened and uncomfortable. It is not appeasement to stop being rowdy for their sake. (FFP3 masks are expensive, in short supply and to be effective need to be face-fitted).
Are you 77th? Or just terminally dim? Your glasses steam up because your breath (and everything in it) is escaping the mask. IE it’s bleedin useless. And to equate rowdiness with not wearing masks is what’s called a ‘false analogy’, ie they’re not at all comparable (cf the ridiculous seatbelt comparison’). More illogical, self-righteous bullcrap. If you’re so damned concerned about he vulnerable then stay away from them, let them make their own decisions, and the rest of us will get on with having a life. The denial of that life based on lies and relentless fear-inducing propaganda is as egregiously UNcaring and UNrighteous as you can get, so you can stuff your high-minded, virtue-signalling opinions up you a*se along with your filthy face-diaper. Have a nice day!
Your glasses steam up because your breath (and everything in it) is escaping the mask. IE it’s bleedin useless.
As I understand it, the way ordinary masks work is they prevent you expelling minute virus bearing droplets towards other people and into the atmosphere (which is why the fact that virus by themselves can pass through a mask is irrelevant). There are presumably such droplets in the air that reaches my glasses but it seems unlikely they are going far other than back onto me.
You don’t say why the analogy with rowdy behaviour is false – so I can’t comment on that. The rest of your comment seems to be more of a call to arms than a discussion.
Nope, main transmission now thought to be aerosols, not droplets. And for those droplets that are caught in the mask, what happens to the virions thereafter, pray? As for rowdyism vs non-masking – the first is clearly antisocial and potentially dangerous, the second based on irrational fear based on propaganda and lies; the first consists of oppresive behaviour by the rowdy, the second consists of oppressive behaviour by the masked, ie completely arse-about-face. And if you can’t see how they are fundamentally different, there is little hope for you. And as for a ‘call to arms’, Damn Right – they are definitely needed before the likes of you destroy us all in the name of ‘compassion’ (a quality never so abused as it is now)
The “symbolize consideration” to you because that’s what the people who want you to be forced to wear them have told you. To me, the symbolize some people’s deeply irrational nature and near boundless egotism.
I mean, both arguing that “we must do X to prevent Y from happening” and “we must do X because Y is happening” isn’t exactly rational unless one reduces it to “we must to X regardless of what’s happening”.
I am not aware of anyone telling me that they symbolise consideration for others – I worked it out for myself! (I am capable of empathising with my neighbours and fellow citizens.)
It makes perfect sense to do X to prevent Y from happening and to do because Y is happening. E.g. the bombs start falling so we mobilise the air defences to stop it happening.
Your first statement is – plainly – a lie as the “consideration for others” has been all over the airwaves since this idea started to gain traction last year, or, more precisely, means you must have been among the people who have been instrumental in popularizing this belief.
Your second statement simply misses the point: Masks are supposed to prevent infections effectively. If they don’t do this, as they don’t, there’s no reason to wear them. Argueing that they must be worn because what they were supposed to prevent happened despite of them is illogical.
Well I am sorry but the fact is I have never heard the “consideration for others” line from elsewhere. One reason may be that I don’t spend much time listening to sources that are sympathetic to my own beliefs. For me that is a waste of time. It is just an echo chamber. I learn much more spending time on sites like this where I am out of line with most people.
I am confused by your second paragraph. No one claims that masks are perfect. So there will be transmission despite wearing them. However, many of us think they reduce transmission a bit. Where is the logical problem?
”I learn much more spending time on sites like this where I am out of line with most people.”
You spend time and post a lot on a sceptics site when you admit you are of a different persuasion. By now you must realise you are not ‘converting’ anyone to your views. So are you a masochist?
It would be naïve to imagine I was going to convert anyone. I mainly post here because I enjoy the debate. However, I also learn a lot. I also think it is a good idea to debate these issues and subject one’s views to polite criticism. Don’t you?
After all Toby Young says in the “about” section that there should be a debate about the issues. There isn’t much debate if you only have one viewpoint.
How about this: if you feel a bit poorly you don’t go out, if you feel well then you can if you want, no masks necessary ‘cos no-one’s infectious enough to need one. Can’t think why no- one thought of it before – oh, wait. . .
Sadly Covid can infect even when you are presymptomatic or asymptomatic. In fact I believe current thinking is that you are most infectious just before and after you get symptoms.https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30172-5/fulltext
Ah, the big lie. A US study on domiciles could only manage a maximum possible asymptomatic transmission rate of 0.7%, echoing last year’s South Korean study using their (world’s best) T&T system that found only 1 potential case from thousands. And then there’s those 10 million Wuhan residents. . .
It’s a foundational myth. Asymptomatic transmission is likely between very rare and rocking horse s**t (which is why Typhoid Mary gained mythological notoriety).
PS. Presymptomatic transmission may be possible, but locking people up, killing thousands (will likely be 10s of millions over the next decade as recession kicks in) and making everyone wear filthy rags on their faces on the grounds that some people might be coming down with something is not only insane, it is immoral and unethical, to say the least.
Glad you accept the it is possible for people to transmit the virus who do not have symptoms. Lockdowns were not the subject of debate. Describing masks as filthy rags is hardly scientific is it? They vary. Whether they are justified depends on the risk of transmission which is a matter of ongoing debate.
It is easy, but not very productive, to play the game of finding the research paper that supports your prior view. There is a mass of research out there into asymptomatic transmission with all sorts of conclusions (just go onto Google Scholar and search on sars-cov-2 asymptomatic transmission). However, it doesn’t matter very much because you accept presymptomatic is possible in the next comment.
If you think they reduce transmission and want to wear one fine- none of my business, but why should that mean I have to wear one? This is utter madness.
If I believe they reduce transmission, then I believe they reduce transmission from you to others. It all depends on whether that belief is true.
The continued use of the word ‘believe’ is revealing.
I was just trying to be precise. It doesn’t mean that is an unjustified belief.
Well done for braving the ‘opposition’, you at least deserve some credit for that. Hopefully you’re finding that most here are informed, and dedicated to the scientific method (as well as feeling highly frustrated and extremely persecuted). Has it never struck you that you cannot have debates such as this on ANY mainstream platform (because consensus)? Have you never noticed the blatant disregard for said scientific method employed by establishment ‘scientists’ (eg consensus)? Does the name ‘Lysenko’ ring any bells?
Thanks for the pat on the back. Hopefully you’re finding that most here are informed, and dedicated to the scientific method (as well as feeling highly frustrated and extremely persecuted). Informed yes – dedicated to the scientific method – debatable, most who respond seem more interested in attacking me personally. After all you wrote this. which includes: “Are you 77th? Or just terminally dim? ” “More illogical, self-righteous bullcrap.” “so you can stuff your high-minded, virtue-signalling opinions up you a*se along with your filthy face-diaper.” Has it never struck you that you cannot have debates such as this on ANY mainstream platform (because consensus)? I went to the first BBC news item on their website that I could fine about Covid. There are currently 2446 comments with multiple levels of response and with views across the spectrum. The problem with debate on mainstream platforms is nothing to do with consensus – it is because they are for the most not designed for lengthy debate (like You-tube). If you really want to debate with pro-mask people (other than me) you can try something like BMJ blogs: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/03/11/whos-confusing-guidance-masks-covid-19-epidemic/ Have you never noticed the blatant disregard for said scientific method employed by establishment… Read more »
Yes. I am sure that ordinary masks don’t protect others as well as surgerical masks. But that wasn’t the point. The point was the claim that:
Mask wearing has certain, many and very, very serious negative medical side effects.
There is no reason to suppose that a full blown medical mask would have less side effects than the standard cloth mask.
Just like the surgeons who didn’t clean their instrument or hands when operating until someone realised it wasn’t doing the patients much good. Surgical practices change over time.
Surgeons never wear a mask for more than four hours at a time, never wear them outside of a sterile environment, never touch them with their hands and if they do touch them, always replace them. These are all things that cannot be said of the general public and their corona muzzles
I don’t think Khan is expecting people to wear masks for more than four hours at a time – not unless there is a major problem on the tube!
Why should touching your mask lead to “very, very serious negative medical side effects”?
My doctor is the same. She can’t help herself. But she is still a reasonably good doctor. We remain courteous, she has given up nagging me about vaccination
The so called “vaccines” are not working that well and the government knows this but can’t say as the vaxed 70% of the population will get angry, very angry indeed and the rest won’t get vaxed. This awareness of the population is increasing and the anger is seeping out. Even in the body politic. Yesterday Parliament voted for compulsory vaccination for care home workers 319-246. 30 of the Noes were conservative MPs and 194 were Labour whose MPs exceptionally voted against the government on Covid matters. The tide is turning
Labour MP’s hey? Wow. They actually represented ordinary workers interests for once! I suppose even a broken clock is still right twice a day 😉
Still, good for them. Please to see some political pushback.
Couldn’t agree more. Hopefully ‘I’m exempt’ will still suffice.
That’s why they’ve pushed the pretence that they function as source control, i.e. that their main function is to stop infected people spreading it. This is not, of course, backed up by any evidence but is very effective at setting people against each other, and encouraging the paranoid to treat anyone not muzzled as a serious biological hazard…
I seem to remember an expert in the field writing that it would be practically impossible to devise a trial that would meaningfully confirm the hypothesis that you wearing a mask protects others.
It’s very handy to base your policies on unfalsifiable claims
Hmmm, that sounds familiar…CAGW anyone?
Hmmm, my first thought too (April 2020)!
Visual and convincing example showing how Face knickers don’t protect others from airborne materials including and especially viruses. Exhale cigarette smoke or better still Vape aerosol whilst weaing a face mask, watch the faces of the maskers. I’ve suggested it to several maskers who vape, with their mates watching on. Usually followed by confused silence!
Here’s an illustration of how masks do NOT filter your exhaled breath – or protect against an airborne aerosolized virus
Spot on
From the article:
“Transport for London is the first operator to say that it will make wearing a mask a condition of carriage, unless you’re exempt.
From 2 May to 29 May 2021, 86% of TfL customers said they were wearing face coverings at all times on public transport.
Of the 14% not wearing a face covering at all times or not at all, almost three-quarters (74%) claim to have an exemption or good reason under the current regulations for not doing so, TfL research shows.”
Sorted.
Nothing changes for us 14% who can read, have backbone and an IQ above 50.
If anyone still wears a mask after having read this article and study on masks many grave side effects, they fully deserve their resulting and severe illnesses.
https://www.hausarzt-kenzingen.de/aktuelles/
It’s going to make travel on TFL services very nasty from Monday for anyone who is exempt. The evil eye from other travellers, and hundreds of enforcement goons exceeding their powers. So many people are lapping it up though. I’ll be keeping off their services for a while..
There are already many people who use TFL without masks so it will certainly be interesting.
Just say to your fellow travellers “are you looking at me?” They usually avert their eyes then
A simple cough into a hanky should diffuse the situation, and free up some nearby seating capacity.
😀 Great idea!
I do that in the supermarket when someone veers away when they see my smiling face rather than a mask. Also, I try to get as close as possible further around the shop, leaning over them to reach the shelves, whilst smiling of course
The exemptions still stand so no one should be harassed by any little general throwing their weight around. I’ve had plenty of evil eyed stares – ooh, I’m scared 😨. Not. No one has hassled me. If they’re too bloody scared to not wear a nap, then they’re not brave enough to challenge you. Mind you, there’s always going to be the odd one pretending to be brave, but worry about them when they actually appear. I’m sure we can calmly out-brave them!
My face gets the occasional ‘look’ on the tube from the muzzled, but for obvious reasons it’s hard to gauge whether it’s disapproval or adoration.
More often I find it’s hard getting any eye contact at all with masked passengers as their normal communication skills have been removed, and they sit silently staring at the facemask propaganda from the Grand Khan.
There is certainly a strange dynamic going on. I went to my local off-license on Sunday and every customer in there was maskless. Yet I saw two of them then go into the mini-supermarket next door where they put their masks on even though the staff in there don’t give a damn. Baffling.
It’s crazy in Spain too. They wear masks outside and take them off in restaurants
The ones that crack me up are the people that sit at the table next to the door, who when leaving put on their muzzle for no more than two seconds while they exit. How a supposedly intelligent creature can unknowingly have totally submitted to fascism on this scale is beyond me.
I saw a guy enter a pub garden and realised with horror that he’d forgotten his mask. He literally sprinted to his table whilst holding his jacket over his face like some crazed loon. I couldn’t help but burst out laughing.
So… no masks on London transport, then?
Why has London kept Herr Khan in power. The man is clearly a tyrant Like so many of his ilk along with bloody scientists in thrall, cant bear the thought of giving back any of the freedoms they’ve taken away. They’ll be frantically thinking of ways to impose more diktats.
Vote these little Hitlers out for Gods sake, come on London, Manchester et al. Ignore them. Its up to you. I for one will continue acting as if they don’t exist… for all I’m worth.
So never.
Dear Mr Khan, please show me the science that says virusses bounce off masks. I do understand that the masks stop larger aerosols, but please explain what happens when the moisture evaporates and the viruses (viri?) are left on their own floating in the air.
I keep wondering at that. Strangely, no-one seems interested.
Ah London, of course the only place that matters in the entire UK. To people who live there I say carry on defying these tyrants.
But honestly the rest of the country don’t give a flying fandango what sad man Khan thinks or says, and last time I looked that was the majority of us.!
I am sorry that people in London have to listen to the pocket dictator.
We don’t. The worst that can happen if not wearing a mask next Monday is to be asked to leave. Just get on the next bus!
“As long as the virus is still with us, and as long as we’re still concerned about the virus being transmitted, we will make it compulsory.” ……. So, basically masks forever then.
No. See my answer above
“This means that, despite the easing of restrictions on July 19th, it will be listed as a condition in a legal agreement between TfL and its customers.”
That is not an “agreement” at all. The word “agreement” implies both parties discussing and then mutually something. These are conditions being imposed by one party on another.
In any commercial contract the company can include what conditions it likes. It can say: « if you get on my bus or train, you are impliedly accepting the company terms and conditions ». However there is law which says contract conditions must be fair: The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Yes it was passed that long ago. So the question is, is it fair to eject someone from a bus or train for not wearing a mask, when the law of the land says there is no obligation to wear one? The answer is obviously « no ». Which means this amendment to carriage conditions is dead in the water should any one challenge it in the courts
There is no legal obligation about you have to wear (I guess wearing nothing might come under some kind of indecent exposure law) but many institutions have rules about what you are allowed to wear. How is wearing masks different?
Other items of clothing don’t restrict your breathing, make it difficult for you to speak and be heard, and to see human faces – all of which are fundamental human activities that have been practiced in public since time immemorial
Rules about other items of clothing have evolved over centuries and are widely accepted and apart from indecent exposure are not enforced by law but by convention, and the etiquette is based on social norms that have grown organically rather than manufactured overnight by the biggest propaganda campaign in human history, all of which is based on the barefaced lie that COVID is exceptional
The wearing of masks is presented as scientifically based when the evidence is that they make no noticeable difference in real world scenarios
“implicitly accepting” though is not the same as “agreeing”. Because you have no say or choice in the matter. Possibly it’s the same in legal jargon, but not in the real world.
There is a significant distinction between private companies agreeing terms of business and an essential public service provider imposing terms unilaterally on customers who have no option other than to use the service. You might as well argue that no one has to use the fluoridated water that is the only liquid that can be obtained from their taps.
The Conditions of Carriage are meaningless in respect of behaviours on trains. The worst that can be done is they take away your Oyster Card (so you use your credit or debit card instead to tap in). Fare evasion is dealt with under the byelaws, a very different kettle of fish. So adding wearing face masks to the C of C has the same weighting as the rule not to put your feet on the seats.
Instead of organisation a “pants off” day on the tube, the next one should be a “mask off” day.
Could you get your sandwiches out and pretend you are in sitting in a cafe? And is this any virus?
I suppose the one thing this whole catastrophic saga has revealed is the truly authoritarian nature of the likes of Khan, Drakeford, Sturgeon, Johnson, Whitty, Vallance, Ferguson and Michie. Never foget this, come voting time, or in the future.
If there is any voting.
It really is this simple folks
From 21st June I’ve noticed an increase and increasing number mask free, in that first week of cancelled freedom 3 people including a staff member in a large DIY chain mask free, last weekend there was no one in the petrol station shop wearing a mask, anecdotally encouraging
These viruses will always be with us – you cannot escape this fact – viruses of all kinds will never ever go away including this one – even the Spanish Flu of 1918 never went away – it simply mutated and combined with other viruses to create new strains of that virus – all mutating and infecting our bodies endlessly – but most of the time we simply become immune to them – a lot of the time we don’t even know we have been infected … thats what our immune systems are there to do and have done for billions of years – defend us in this endless battle against viruses in all their mutations until one day when we are very old a frail and our immune systems weaker than it used to be we may succumbe to them – in the meantime we usually enjoyed what precious time we have on this planet.
Christ, its like living in the Dark Ages – what with the Mad Mullah of Londonistan and Emperor Nero at Number 10 … the world has gone completely potty.
I doubt if much will change: I expect the BTP will do a “crackdown” or “enforcement exercise” for a week or two, and there will be a fresh wave of the “let’s protect each other” posters and announcements, then it will be as now: there will be the brave and bare-faced, and the tutting and baa-baaing sheep. Will the staff be made to muzzle up? I’ve been noticing lots of bare-faced staff, even on the front line.
If refusing to wear a mask is not against the law, and it won’t be come 21/7 then there is little Khan can do if people refuse to wear the things. He could attempt a civil action, I suppose. Good luck with that!
He intends to make it a condition of carriage and is considering introducing a bylaw as well.
Grant Shapps has backed the move, meaning neurotic Boris has agreed, meaning it will stay and masks will return.
maybe vaccines have something in them to make people so compliant