Comment by MaulingMonkey | Hacker News Reader

Comment by MaulingMonkey | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Here in the liberal northwest, where we at least have a token amount of public transport, I see the bus signs alternating between their usual route number + description and "masks required". Haven't been on one to verify use by ridership, or to see what the driver's reaction to noncompliant riders is. The higher staff-to-rider ratio might help?

Outdoor mask use is limited (50%?) but at least quite sparse and distant (it's pretty cold, and wet, and everyone drives anyways.) Indoors the numbers are much higher (I'm guessing at least 90%), including for smaller businesses. I'm trying to think of a single business around here (small or large) without at least a sign saying you need to mask up before entry, and I'm drawing a blank. Several have soap dispensers too, and haphazard plexiglass sheets to help physically separate staff from customers.

Food is strictly delivery and take-out. Even when dine-in was still AFAIK legal, some places had it already voluntarilly closed off anyways.

> Haven't been on one to verify use by ridership, or to see what the driver's reaction to noncompliant riders is.

Compliance is very high (>95%?), but the people who do not comply are basically the same people who were problems in the Before Times: belligerent, mentally ill, or both. The drivers almost always let them get away with it, again just as in the Before Times, probably because it's a risk to even interact with these people. I, for one, try very hard not to make eye contact with them or even look in their general direction; treating them like the Bugblatter Beast of Traal is at least moderately effective.

I do wish they wouldn't flash the stupid "Masks Required" on the route signs so often, though. It makes it a lot harder to tell which bus is actually arriving. And showing it on the route indicator on the _back_ of the coach is just spiteful.

> the people who do not comply are basically the same people who were problems in the Before Times: belligerent, mentally ill, or both.

Or maybe they're one of 12,943 medical and public health scientists who signed the Great Barrington Declaration [0].

[0] ; https://gbdeclaration.org/

The declaration you linked seems to be more about lockdown policy and doesn't even mention masks.

It at least mentions:

> Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold.

Wearing a mask seems like a simple hygine measure to me.

Perhaps a signator might not wear a mask as a measure of protest against government "overreach", disregarding that part of the declaration, disregarding the law, and disregarding the risk of their actions to the health of their fellow citizens.

That last bit seems rather hostile. Rather belligerent. So I think we're right back to square one.

There are reasonable discussions and lawsuits to be had about how far is too far, and what reasonable public policy looks like. Even arguing on the internet sounds more productive to me than not wearing a mask as "protest" though.

I don’t know where either of the London-based commenters go shopping but all staff are legally required to wear masks at shops in the U.K.

Im in Scotland, at my local coop the staff hardly ever wear masks. Twice ive seen them have conversations with people just hanging at the till who arent wearing masks eithet.

Visit any of the major supermarket brands in London and I guarantee you'll see a handful of staff or security not or not properly wearing a mask.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com