Just from personal experience, my impression is that public transportation is mostly all right, but shops have really dropped the ball.
It isn't surprising that after a year of frustration people are exhausted and starting to act like this over. This isn't over.
Very odd, I caught two trains on the way in to Town (hg-FP & FP-STPan). Both sets of passengers had compliance levels of about 25%. On the way back, I caught the train back from St P to FP. This time compliance levels were quite high, perhaps 80%.
I believe different train operators have different guidance. So it's mandatory on TFL but not on national operators.
General over-confidence about the situation I guess - same in shops.
Notice that supermarkets have removed cleaning stations ,
While increasing numbers are dying of Covid
I complained about checkout operatives in a supermarket, none of whom were wearing masks. If shop workers don’t wear them where is the example to shoppers? Unfortunately, managerial response was there is nothing we can do, because the ruling is no longer mandated by government law, people are free to make their own choices. And don’t we love a bit of freedom of choice in this country!!
Same perspective will apply to transport.
A lot of people seem to wear a mask on their chin so they can pull it up if required. I don't understand. Just wear your mask, it's not that hard!
I'm sure I thoroughly confuse people by wearing both a mask AND a sunflower lanyard. Which in the service industry seems to have been co opted by people who don't want to wear a mask. Highly suspicious if every 20-something serving in a pub is wearing one, and no mask. My sunflower lanyard means I have an invisible disability so you may need to take more care around me. It doesn't mean I can't wear a mask to keep myself and you safe
I have searched fairly assiduously for evidence that the wearing of ill-fitting, badly worn masks, which allow the free passage of air in both directions, by an ill-disciplined general public, is actually of benefit. The evidence I have found has taken the form of consolidated anecdotes, or of studies where self-reporting is the means of data collection. None of it has convinced me that the imposition of masks is justified.
Can a proponent point me to some convincing evidence, please? (I asked this question on Twitter and was offered the most unutterable tosh in response).
I have an anecdote which suggests to me why compliance might be falling off. It is public place rather than public transport, related, but the behaviours will probably be carried over as theatre-goers travel home,
Having read glowing reviews, I stumped up the ticket price (about the same as a PCR test) to see "Anything Goes" at the Barbican. The reviewers are correct, it is a joy. I sat in the auditorium with about 1100 others and mask-wearing was clearly optional. Which makes perfect sense. I bought a drink beforehand and removed the mask I had put on in response to the very polite urging the management had posted. As did hundreds of others. Thereby negating much benefit the masks might have had. I had with me some chocolate and a bag of nuts to nibble, mask free. Most (I think most, certainly many) of the audience had brought drinks in plastic containers which they sipped, mask free, throughout the performance.
If I've been exposed to the combined germs of hundreds in the theatre, the risk presented, as I nibble my nuts, by the handful of passengers on the top deck of the 141 is hardly worth worrying about.
It has been said a million times over the past 18 months, but apparently it needs repeating: wearing a mask is to protect others moreso than to protect yourself. I expect many of your fellow passengers on the 141 would appreciate you wearing a mask and not sharing your germs with them, especially if you have just shared the germs of hundreds in the theatre.
Simply repeating something does not make it true. I would very much like to see evidence. Reporting on This study contains the paragraph
which is not a sufficient benefit to justify the imposition. And gives the lie to the assertion about protecting others if 90% of the germs are broadcast anyway.
A much more meaningful intervention would have been for the theatre to fix all its doors open, which it did not.
This appears to be an argument in favour of people wearing their masks properly fitted.