beantwoord

1 june wearing masks


I do not understand Netherlands is puting masks in train from 1 june.I do not consent with this rule,masks are not healthy and they are a waiste of money.You did not had 3 months almost and you decided to put masks now? You just lost a client,i used to love traveling with the train.I will send a petition,this is ilegal to force people to wear masks,under these conditions.Who will travel 4 hours with mask on? A healthy person who doesn’t has problems or a person with respiratory issues? I needed to make abonament,i quit,bike or car if you do not return to normaly,respect us a little please

icon

Beste antwoord door Tamzin 1 juni 2020, 13:08

You don't need to consent, it's sufficient that you wear one. Masks are at the moment compulsory in public transport nearly everywhere in Europe and Asia. And that it's illegal is total nonsense, you can try tour luck in court if you think you have the right to make other people sick.

Bekijk origineel

14 reacties

Reputatie 7
Badge +3

You don't need to consent, it's sufficient that you wear one. Masks are at the moment compulsory in public transport nearly everywhere in Europe and Asia. And that it's illegal is total nonsense, you can try tour luck in court if you think you have the right to make other people sick.

Reputatie 6

@Tamzin I highly doubt forcing people to wear masks without sufficient evidence proving medical advantage is legal too. I honestely hope someone will bring a case like this to court. I think the ruling could be very interesting.

I agree with you that measures like this could be legal when they are favourable for the sake of public health. In my opinion, this is however, questionable at best.

Reputatie 7
Badge +3

If you don’t wear a face mask in public transport I doubt that you will finish your journey without being removed from the vehicle.

 

Reputatie 6

I travelled for almost 6 hours yesterday with my bandana and only wore it for about 15 minutes in total. They can't enforce this pathetic rule so don't feel obliged. They know they're powerless when people refuse to do it in large numbers.

I travelled for almost 6 hours yesterday with my bandana and only wore it for about 15 minutes in total. They can't enforce this pathetic rule so don't feel obliged. They know they're powerless when people refuse to do it in large numbers.

 

I find this a highly inappropriate response.

Reputatie 6

I find this government-sanctioned attempt at criminalizing innocent travellers highly inappropriate.

You're not supposed to be on the train without a mouth guard. A bandana is not a mouth guard and therefore not allowed. I understand that not everyone agrees, but it's the rules now anyway. If you are on the train without a mouth shield you can get a fine for this. We'll try to enforce it. I think it's special that you're saying here that you don't obey our rules, MJL. I hope you realize soon that this is the best thing for all of us and you're just gonna travel with a mouth guard.

Reputatie 6

For the record, I have not broken and will not break this rule. I luckily have other means to travel and do not use public transport during this time. However, I do believe that this rule is not evidence based and probably useless and illegal and I think a court ruling in this matter would be very interesting. And by saying that I do NOT mean to encourage anyone to break this rule, attract a fine and bring it to court, I merely say the ruling in such a case would interest me.

I completely understand that people, especially moderators, explain the rules the way they are and would not have expected anything less. It is good to see NS understands its own policy. However, I would really like to see evidence from people who state the reason behind this rule as a fact. What evidence is there to state that not wearing a mask would have anything to do with thinking "you have the right to make other people sick" or wearing them "is the best thing for all of us"?

"All of us" would even include people with e.g. respiratory diseases who could suffer other (worse? I do not know whether this has been researched) consequences from wearing mask. And this would include the (large? I have seen some examples in the news) group of people who do not know how to use a mask properly and e.g. forgo washing their hands before putting (a clean?) one on. Would that defeat the purpose? Couldn't wearing a mask this way increase the risk of an infection of people around the person wearing the mask or that person himself?

Badge +3

@Olav93 ik zou daar punt voor punt op willen ingaan (snap het zelf bijna niet meer) maar heeft zo weinig zin. Het is zoals het is (voorlopig).

En mijn wekker gaat om 6:00.. Heb ik genoeg beschermingsmiddelen bij me voor de job? Ja, er moeten er 4 een mondkapje op (zelf regelen en anders via mij ook al mag dat niet!) en 3 mogen er mee zonder omdat ze nog geen 13 zijn.

Totale anarchie… ik vind het wel prima verder eigenljk, en kan me voorstellen dat NS personeel het ook soms wel best vindt, bij (groepen) jeugd.

Reputatie 1

For the record, I have not broken and will not break this rule. I luckily have other means to travel and do not use public transport during this time. However, I do believe that this rule is not evidence based and probably useless and illegal and I think a court ruling in this matter would be very interesting. And by saying that I do NOT mean to encourage anyone to break this rule, attract a fine and bring it to court, I merely say the ruling in such a case would interest me.

I completely understand that people, especially moderators, explain the rules the way they are and would not have expected anything less. It is good to see NS understands its own policy. However, I would really like to see evidence from people who state the reason behind this rule as a fact. What evidence is there to state that not wearing a mask would have anything to do with thinking "you have the right to make other people sick" or wearing them "is the best thing for all of us"?

"All of us" would even include people with e.g. respiratory diseases who could suffer other (worse? I do not know whether this has been researched) consequences from wearing mask. And this would include the (large? I have seen some examples in the news) group of people who do not know how to use a mask properly and e.g. forgo washing their hands before putting (a clean?) one on. Would that defeat the purpose? Couldn't wearing a mask this way increase the risk of an infection of people around the person wearing the mask or that person himself?

 

Hou don't wear a mask for yourself. You wear it to prevent small mucus and droplets from reaching those within breathing distance. Non-medical masks do not protect from individual viral particles, but it does minimize droplets potentially containing the virus from reaching the world beyond your mask. People with respiratory problems (who are in a risk group) should consult a doctor and/or their employer whether it's smart to use public transport.

 

Also, I'm once again disappointed by the lack of common sense in humans...about 3/10 people wear their masks without covering their noses...how thick can you be?

Reputatie 6

For the record, I have not broken and will not break this rule. I luckily have other means to travel and do not use public transport during this time. However, I do believe that this rule is not evidence based and probably useless and illegal and I think a court ruling in this matter would be very interesting. And by saying that I do NOT mean to encourage anyone to break this rule, attract a fine and bring it to court, I merely say the ruling in such a case would interest me.

I completely understand that people, especially moderators, explain the rules the way they are and would not have expected anything less. It is good to see NS understands its own policy. However, I would really like to see evidence from people who state the reason behind this rule as a fact. What evidence is there to state that not wearing a mask would have anything to do with thinking "you have the right to make other people sick" or wearing them "is the best thing for all of us"?

"All of us" would even include people with e.g. respiratory diseases who could suffer other (worse? I do not know whether this has been researched) consequences from wearing mask. And this would include the (large? I have seen some examples in the news) group of people who do not know how to use a mask properly and e.g. forgo washing their hands before putting (a clean?) one on. Would that defeat the purpose? Couldn't wearing a mask this way increase the risk of an infection of people around the person wearing the mask or that person himself?

 

Hou don't wear a mask for yourself. You wear it to prevent small mucus and droplets from reaching those within breathing distance. Non-medical masks do not protect from individual viral particles, but it does minimize droplets potentially containing the virus from reaching the world beyond your mask. People with respiratory problems (who are in a risk group) should consult a doctor and/or their employer whether it's smart to use public transport.

 

Also, I'm once again disappointed by the lack of common sense in humans...about 3/10 people wear their masks without covering their noses...how thick can you be?

I fully understand that the idea of wearing face masks is to protect others and not the person wearing the mask. That has never been discussed in this topic.

However, is there any reliable, convincing evidence that wearing a (possibly homemade, used and not washed) face mask (that was put on with hands that weren't washed) does indeed "minimize droplets potentially containing the virus from reaching the world beyond your mask"? Or even more important, that it doesn't do any harm to anyone (the people around the person wearing the mask who it is intended to help) or the wearer himself (which would, in my opinion, make this rule unethical as it would force people to risk their own health for the sake of others')?

You are the third person in this topic alone making such a claim, but none of the people claiming this have provided any convincing evidence to support this claim and all I have found myself is that this is highly doubtful at best.

It seems to me that you all are just repeating Mark Rutte's reasoning. The problem I have with that, is that he didn't provide any evidence for this claim either. Not in parliament, not in the documtation of the reasoning behind a proposed law ("Memorie van toelichting") (as this rules were implemented using an emergency procedure that doesn't require this), not in one of his speeches, not in a publically available advice where this ruling was based on, nowhere I looked for it, while I can honestely say I did look for it.

I was thought in (Dutch) university to be sceptical about claims (made by anyone, either a scientist, a politician or whomever) and never believe such a claim to be correct at first sight, to look for evidence and not to believe a statement before being convinced by such evidence. The fact that anyone asked for evidence supporting this claim (Mark Rutte in parliament, people in this topic and I suspect many others) just repeats the claim (phrased differently), does nothing but make me more sceptical about this claim. I find it highly worrying that so few people - even in parliament - seem to be able to understand this and blindly seem to believe whatever government says.

Reputatie 6
Badge +1

@Olav93 An article of The Guardian might be of interest to you. Have a look at the links provided in the article as well as they might answer some of your questions.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/which-kind-of-face-mask-is-the-best-protection-against-coronavirus

Badge +3

And about the types of masks.. a basic overview (in Dutch)

Seeing, reading and hearing how people now seem to (re)use them, take them off at will, etc… the only single effect of them is some kind of awareness that there is danger when not keeping distance. Not so much for you (a simple mask will not protect you) but for ‘protection’ of those around you.

Hence the claim for the red and green category “other measures are still needed”.

Reputatie 7
Badge +3

My concern, and I have stated this here before, is that home made and other cloth masks only provide limited protection. The Guardian article, like some other articles, speaks of “some benefit” and “better than none". 

Are paper surgical single-use masks better or is a cloth mask OK?

The evidence on any mask use, outside of surgical masks, is still emerging: there appears to be some benefit, but the exact parameters of which masks are the best and the extent to which they protect the wearer or those around them are still being figured out. A tighter fitting around the face is probably better, but the CDC suggests any covering, including a bandana, is better than none.

The same goes for the RIVM, in the technical briefing of may 7th it says “Beperken de drager in zeer beperkte mate” and “Dragen mogelijk enigszins bij aan het beperken verspreiding in openbare ruimte” and they are no replacement for social distancing.

Of course you can improve the protection of such cloth masks by using some kind of filter material but I wonder how many people will do this. Plus the fact that people do not always use a mask the right way, i.e. touching it multiple times, pulling it down or removing the mask to eat or drink something. 

On the other hand, the RIVM today estimated that there are about 1700 contagious people. If that is including those in hospital / on the ICU plus the positive tested persons in self isolation, then there are very few contagious people walking around and even less taking the train. Perhaps the estimation of contagious people will rise now that everybody can get tested and we could get a more accurate figure of infected persons.

Reageer