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
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.
• ...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
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
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:
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
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
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.