4 ms·

This is probably going to be tricky. I don't see how the 2 meter rule (or variant thereof) can be enforced on the underground trains at peak times. On a slight

This is probably going to be tricky. I don't see how the 2 meter rule (or variant thereof) can be enforced on the underground trains at peak times. On a slight tangent, given that everyone will be required to wear a mask doesn't the risk of spreading/catching the virus diminish thereby eliminating the need for the distance rule?

georgespencer 6y ago
Masks are not 100% effective even when worn properly. Think of it like an airliner: smoking is banned, but they also have smoke alarms AND flame retardant fittings.
- stupidcar 6y ago
  https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/05/29/feds-seek-incentives-to-encourage-driving-which-will-accelerate-the-other-pandemic-traffic-violence/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/05/29/feds-seek-incentives-... "Japan, which has the third highest rate of transit ridership in the world, found no infection events linked to commuter trains after performing rigorous contact tracing on almost 17,000 confirmed cases."
  - georgespencer 6y ago
    On the surface I can't see why no instances of infection being traced to travel on Japan's commuter trains has any relevance in a conversation about London's strategy for decreasing infection risk. From the article you linked: "Oshitani says riders are usually alone and not talking to other passengers. And lately, they are all wearing masks. “An infected individual can infect others in such an environment, but it must be rare,” he says." Tokyo has benefitted from both a fall in the volume of passengers on the Metro, and an infection rate of 0.5 per capita. The virus is more than 500x as prevalent in the UK as a whole, and more than 600x as prevalent in London.
    - stupidcar 6y ago
      The point is, in Japan's case masks appear to be 100% effective, or very close to it, in eliminating transmission on public transport. Do you have a reason to believe greater prevalence of the virus is linked to lower mask effectiveness in this specific context?
      - gok 6y ago
        Wearing masks being 100% effective is utterly impossible. The most positive studies show them being more like 85% effective. There simply are no infected people on Japan's transit, due to the country's intensive, early quarantining procedures. (same with Korea and Taiwan)
      - georgespencer 6y ago
        > in Japan's case masks appear to be 100% effective I think important to note that no serious person could or would ever claim that masks are "100% effective". You're drawing this conclusion from the absence of outbreaks on a depleted Tokyo metro and (although you don't mention it) Paris too. It isn't possible to legislate for manufacturing defects in masks, suboptimal storage conditions, wearing it incorrectly, etc. That's before you even get to the myriad confounding variables which stem from different cultures AND weigh the fact that you're drawing your conclusion -- which will result in preventable deaths, if it's wrong -- from an absence of evidence to the contrary (!). The article you linked and many others on this topic highlight that Japan adopted a "three C's strategy" which has led to social distancing on the Metro in addition to masks (which were already a popular facet of commuting in Tokyo). So just like London, they're doing social distancing and wearing a mask. Worth observing that New York's mask-wearing MTA employees have been disproportionately blighted by COVID-related mortality[1], and London's bus drivers aren't faring (ha) much better[2]. > Do you have a reason to believe greater prevalence of the virus is linked to lower mask effectiveness in this specific context? I didn't suggest that the virus being more prevalent lowers the effectiveness of masks. I pointed out that prevalence is more than 600x higher in London than Japan. The Tokyo Metro transports around 7m passengers per day, which yields 35 infected passengers on the system each day (0.5 per capita). TFL moves 9 million passengers each day, with a 333 per capita instance of COVID-19 infection, which means nearly 30,000 infected individuals. If masks are 100% effective when worn properly, but 10% of the time are either defective or worn improperly, a peak journey in Tokyo would expose 700,000 people to risk from 3.5 COVID carriers. You could express this as a ratio of 200,000 at risk of contracting for every 1 person at risk of spreading the disease. In London the same math sees 900,000 people exposed to risk from 3,000 people. The ratio becomes 300:1. When you consider it in these terms it doesn't seem imprudent to reduce capacity AND insist on masks. At least until there are more meaningful data to support decision making. [1] https://www.thecity.nyc/2020/6/1/21277407/nyc-subway-crews-hit-hardest-by-coronavirus-pandemic-mta-numbers-show https://www.thecity.nyc/2020/6/1/21277407/nyc-subway-crews-h... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/02/world/europe/coronavirus-london-buses.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/02/world/europe/coronavirus-...
  - mjevans 6y ago
    They also have an extremely pro-mask and personal responsibility culture. I find it very likely that someone asymptomatic would be wearing a mask properly (covering the nose and mouth fully) and that someone with symptoms would stay home or in another semi/full quarantine location as much as possible.
    - stupidcar 6y ago
      The post I was replying to was saying that masks are not 100% effective when worn properly. Now you're talking about people not wearing masks properly. What's your point?
      - DanBC 6y ago
        Asymptomatic people probably aren't a significant cause of transmission. People with symptoms who stay at home are going to infect far fewer people than people with symptoms who wear masks and travel.
  - notahacker 6y ago
    This is probably one of the cases where absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence, especially if contract tracers are tasked with identifying possible sources of outbreaks they can actually follow up on and ask people to isolate. As far as I'm aware they're not claiming that none of the known cases used public transport at all. I can't speak for Japan, but identifying which part of the quarter of the population using the Underground I might have come into contact with [the COVID-infected bodily residue of] would have been a practical impossibility even if we'd had a policy of contact tracing at the time. In the six days prior to showing symptoms I worked from home, making one train trip through London and a not-more-obviously risky trip to the supermarket.
  - latchkey 6y ago
    New York City, which is very dense, uses a lot of public transport and had extremely high infection rates.
- Shivetya 6y ago
  they don't have to be 100% effective, they are a signal that the wearer is at least being considerate of others and understands there are risks being public. it is akin to respecting someone's space.
  - rezeroed 6y ago
    On the London Underground there is zero respect of personal space.
- glofish 6y ago
  masks only have very small contribution, perhaps 10-20% at most. the thing is no one fully understand how this virus spreads, who is at risk, what exactly is the right course of action so they latch on whatever the latest fad is, it used to be lockdown, then it became social distancing, but then the riots came and cases did not go up, now it is facemasks that save us all
  - anarazel 6y ago
    I don't think that's true. There's e.g a recent study from the USS Roosevelt, and it showed to be the most effective measure. Followed by social distancing. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6923e4.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6923e4.htm
    - glofish 6y ago
      saying that masks are more effective than social distancing does not make any sense whatsoever. How would you get the virus if there is no one around you. Besides how could you be socially distant in the military and on an aircraft carrier...
- rezeroed 6y ago
  And all the surface touching - armrests, holding on to poles and handles, then an eye rub, nail biting, or on the underground more likely a nose pick.
clairity 6y ago
yes, distance when you can, and wear a mask when you can't. for everyday situations, you don't need both, even on the train/bus. also, it's about a threshold reduction of risk, as zero risk is practically impossible and counter-productive.
DanBC 6y ago
> On a slight tangent, given that everyone will be required to wear a mask doesn't the risk of spreading/catching the virus diminish thereby eliminating the need for the distance rule? We have good evidence that 2 metre distancing works. We strongly think that mask wearing is effective, but we fail to find benefits from mask wearing when we run RCTs. We have a government who has been pushing a herd immunity strategy (even if they dropped that phrasing) and this kind of thing just makes that clear.

georgespencer 6y ago

Masks are not 100% effective even when worn properly. Think of it like an airliner: smoking is banned, but they also have smoke alarms AND flame retardant fittings.

stupidcar 6y ago
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/05/29/feds-seek-incentives-to-encourage-driving-which-will-accelerate-the-other-pandemic-traffic-violence/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/05/29/feds-seek-incentives-... "Japan, which has the third highest rate of transit ridership in the world, found no infection events linked to commuter trains after performing rigorous contact tracing on almost 17,000 confirmed cases."
- georgespencer 6y ago
  On the surface I can't see why no instances of infection being traced to travel on Japan's commuter trains has any relevance in a conversation about London's strategy for decreasing infection risk. From the article you linked: "Oshitani says riders are usually alone and not talking to other passengers. And lately, they are all wearing masks. “An infected individual can infect others in such an environment, but it must be rare,” he says." Tokyo has benefitted from both a fall in the volume of passengers on the Metro, and an infection rate of 0.5 per capita. The virus is more than 500x as prevalent in the UK as a whole, and more than 600x as prevalent in London.
  - stupidcar 6y ago
    The point is, in Japan's case masks appear to be 100% effective, or very close to it, in eliminating transmission on public transport. Do you have a reason to believe greater prevalence of the virus is linked to lower mask effectiveness in this specific context?
    - gok 6y ago
      Wearing masks being 100% effective is utterly impossible. The most positive studies show them being more like 85% effective. There simply are no infected people on Japan's transit, due to the country's intensive, early quarantining procedures. (same with Korea and Taiwan)
    - georgespencer 6y ago
      > in Japan's case masks appear to be 100% effective I think important to note that no serious person could or would ever claim that masks are "100% effective". You're drawing this conclusion from the absence of outbreaks on a depleted Tokyo metro and (although you don't mention it) Paris too. It isn't possible to legislate for manufacturing defects in masks, suboptimal storage conditions, wearing it incorrectly, etc. That's before you even get to the myriad confounding variables which stem from different cultures AND weigh the fact that you're drawing your conclusion -- which will result in preventable deaths, if it's wrong -- from an absence of evidence to the contrary (!). The article you linked and many others on this topic highlight that Japan adopted a "three C's strategy" which has led to social distancing on the Metro in addition to masks (which were already a popular facet of commuting in Tokyo). So just like London, they're doing social distancing and wearing a mask. Worth observing that New York's mask-wearing MTA employees have been disproportionately blighted by COVID-related mortality[1], and London's bus drivers aren't faring (ha) much better[2]. > Do you have a reason to believe greater prevalence of the virus is linked to lower mask effectiveness in this specific context? I didn't suggest that the virus being more prevalent lowers the effectiveness of masks. I pointed out that prevalence is more than 600x higher in London than Japan. The Tokyo Metro transports around 7m passengers per day, which yields 35 infected passengers on the system each day (0.5 per capita). TFL moves 9 million passengers each day, with a 333 per capita instance of COVID-19 infection, which means nearly 30,000 infected individuals. If masks are 100% effective when worn properly, but 10% of the time are either defective or worn improperly, a peak journey in Tokyo would expose 700,000 people to risk from 3.5 COVID carriers. You could express this as a ratio of 200,000 at risk of contracting for every 1 person at risk of spreading the disease. In London the same math sees 900,000 people exposed to risk from 3,000 people. The ratio becomes 300:1. When you consider it in these terms it doesn't seem imprudent to reduce capacity AND insist on masks. At least until there are more meaningful data to support decision making. [1] https://www.thecity.nyc/2020/6/1/21277407/nyc-subway-crews-hit-hardest-by-coronavirus-pandemic-mta-numbers-show https://www.thecity.nyc/2020/6/1/21277407/nyc-subway-crews-h... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/02/world/europe/coronavirus-london-buses.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/02/world/europe/coronavirus-...
- mjevans 6y ago
  They also have an extremely pro-mask and personal responsibility culture. I find it very likely that someone asymptomatic would be wearing a mask properly (covering the nose and mouth fully) and that someone with symptoms would stay home or in another semi/full quarantine location as much as possible.
  - stupidcar 6y ago
    The post I was replying to was saying that masks are not 100% effective when worn properly. Now you're talking about people not wearing masks properly. What's your point?
    - DanBC 6y ago
      Asymptomatic people probably aren't a significant cause of transmission. People with symptoms who stay at home are going to infect far fewer people than people with symptoms who wear masks and travel.
- notahacker 6y ago
  This is probably one of the cases where absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence, especially if contract tracers are tasked with identifying possible sources of outbreaks they can actually follow up on and ask people to isolate. As far as I'm aware they're not claiming that none of the known cases used public transport at all. I can't speak for Japan, but identifying which part of the quarter of the population using the Underground I might have come into contact with [the COVID-infected bodily residue of] would have been a practical impossibility even if we'd had a policy of contact tracing at the time. In the six days prior to showing symptoms I worked from home, making one train trip through London and a not-more-obviously risky trip to the supermarket.
- latchkey 6y ago
  New York City, which is very dense, uses a lot of public transport and had extremely high infection rates.
Shivetya 6y ago
they don't have to be 100% effective, they are a signal that the wearer is at least being considerate of others and understands there are risks being public. it is akin to respecting someone's space.
- rezeroed 6y ago
  On the London Underground there is zero respect of personal space.
glofish 6y ago
masks only have very small contribution, perhaps 10-20% at most. the thing is no one fully understand how this virus spreads, who is at risk, what exactly is the right course of action so they latch on whatever the latest fad is, it used to be lockdown, then it became social distancing, but then the riots came and cases did not go up, now it is facemasks that save us all
- anarazel 6y ago
  I don't think that's true. There's e.g a recent study from the USS Roosevelt, and it showed to be the most effective measure. Followed by social distancing. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6923e4.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6923e4.htm
  - glofish 6y ago
    saying that masks are more effective than social distancing does not make any sense whatsoever. How would you get the virus if there is no one around you. Besides how could you be socially distant in the military and on an aircraft carrier...
rezeroed 6y ago
And all the surface touching - armrests, holding on to poles and handles, then an eye rub, nail biting, or on the underground more likely a nose pick.

clairity 6y ago

yes, distance when you can, and wear a mask when you can't. for everyday situations, you don't need both, even on the train/bus. also, it's about a threshold reduction of risk, as zero risk is practically impossible and counter-productive.

DanBC 6y ago

> On a slight tangent, given that everyone will be required to wear a mask doesn't the risk of spreading/catching the virus diminish thereby eliminating the need for the distance rule? We have good evidence that 2 metre distancing works. We strongly think that mask wearing is effective, but we fail to find benefits from mask wearing when we run RCTs. We have a government who has been pushing a herd immunity strategy (even if they dropped that phrasing) and this kind of thing just makes that clear.