You handle the masks by its handles only.
You do not touch the front part of the masks with unwashed hands.
Single use only for disposable (max of 4 hours).
Reusable must be washed after each use. Repeated washing renders them unusable. So they are reusable only up to a point.
Storage of the mask must be hygienic and come into contact with no untreated surfaces.
There must be no gap between your face and the mask and it must fully cover the whole of the nose and mouth.
Pulling it down to rest under your face causes contamination.
I personally cannot comply with these measures when I am just going about my daily business going to and from work.
From observing people, I would guess above 90 percent of people break one or more of the rules.
So, what's the point?
The better practice which should have been encouraged would have been regular hand washing and not touching your face at all in public spaces. That, most people could do with a bit of will power and a bottle of alcohol rub.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The anthology is just like a cheap white loaf of bread, mixed, proved and baked in just under an hour. It came out of a series of workshops held just as lockdown kicked off, funded by UCL’s Culture Division bursary scheme.
The bursary scheme is supposed to fund projects that provide public engagement which also supports teaching and research. The scheme should also support diverse public groups, including those voices who are heard less often. ucl.ac.uk/culture/projec…
The lecturer in charge of the project, Dr Ezra Horbury, also got a piece in the book (fancy that!), said trans people were often spoken over and denied self-representation in media and denied agency over their own medical narratives.
Ruth Hunt in conversation with *Compassion in Politics held on 22 September 2020 - the day the UK Government announced its decision not to reform the GRA.
*Compassion here really means ‘you agree with me and you’re left wing’.
Well it was a wheels-cha-cha of a ‘conversation’ with Ruthie-baby constantly treading water and not really saying anything.
To boil it down in one tweet would be easy, but I’m not going to because that would be too easy.
Ruth was asked what had gone wrong, why had the Govt. reversed gear on the GRA reforms?
This Govt., rued Ruth, didn’t want to advance inclusivity issues in general. It had simply been a horrendous time, when trans people had had to listen to a significant vocal minority
It was called ‘Bloody Difficult Women’ but examples of anyone being ‘bloody difficult’ were in short supply, and the supply of actual women also lacking.
Run by the Conservative LGBT+ group, they invited a range of LGBT+ activists across the political spectrum.
The panel also had two bods from Stonewall - the new CEO Nancy Kelley, and Ayla Holdom.
In total there were 16 on the call, meaning that the audience was just 8 people.
They really should have cut their losses and cancelled.
Nancy was invited to speak first. She didn’t want to talk about Stonewall, she wanted to talk about what it’s like to be a ‘bloody difficult woman’. Being a 'bloody difficult woman' for Nancy involves quoting the made-up facts and figures from Stonewall reports.
Let’s not forget the whole thrust behind the BLM movement is actually prison abolition and defunding the police, *not* improving the lives of people. The group which organised this panel also wants to decriminalise paid rape.
As you can see from the blurb, the aim is total anarchy.
I had no doubt whatsoever before it started that no one would come up with any reasonable alternatives to punish or deter criminals and in fact the topic of defunding the police or abolishing prisons wasn’t even discussed.
The panel was an eclectic mix.
The chair Josh Virasami is *sort of* an official leader of the UK chapter for BLM.