Morrisons to ban shoppers who refuse to wear face masks

[MrsMando]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55618408

If it's a big space/store and those who don't wear face-coverings keep away from others as much as possible, and also don't selfishly increase staff's risk of catching virus by approaching with enquiries, then it seems that will have to do.

How charitable of you DeeDee.

It is also disablist not to wear a mask, because that puts the lives of those around them at risk - particularly those with pre-existing conditions (look at the list of those covered by be clinically vulnerable list, and how many are covered by DDA)

One person's adjustment is not reasonable when it puts another at risk of death.

People of all ages with (DDA qualifying) medical conditions found themselves scrabbling for online slots when shielding began. The idea that you can differentiate what is accessible based on medical situations during a pandemic is already well established. That wasn't considered disablism

And remember that when we complained about quality of food parcels, we were just told to shut up and be glad we had them.

It's shit to be excluded even further because of a medical condition, but thus is what is happening now.

Yes, I know shielding wasn't the law, but it was imposed for the common good, because if 2.5 bedblockers (many working age, some DC) all fell ill early, and severely, we would overwhelm NHS just in this one group.

Seek help from your council helpline for getting supermarket slot access or assistance from volunteers. There are many sources of support out there

We didn't want to do this either. But we did, and we weren't the ones posing the direct risk to the vulnerable

@nether

It is also disablist not to wear a mask, because that puts the lives of those around them at risk - particularly those with pre-existing conditions (look at the list of those covered by be clinically vulnerable list, and how many are covered by DDA)

One person's adjustment is not reasonable when it puts another at risk of death.

People of all ages with (DDA qualifying) medical conditions found themselves scrabbling for online slots when shielding began. The idea that you can differentiate what is accessible based on medical situations during a pandemic is already well established. That wasn't considered disablism

And remember that when we complained about quality of food parcels, we were just told to shut up and be glad we had them.

It's shit to be excluded even further because of a medical condition, but thus is what is happening now.

Yes, I know shielding wasn't the law, but it was imposed for the common good, because if 2.5 bedblockers (many working age, some DC) all fell ill early, and severely, we would overwhelm NHS just in this one group.

Seek help from your council helpline for getting supermarket slot access or assistance from volunteers. There are many sources of support out there

We didn't want to do this either. But we did, and we weren't the ones posing the direct risk to the vulnerable

What an odd comment, for several reasons. DDA hasn’t been in place for 10 years and neither it nor the Equality Act have a lost if qualifying conditions. Whether you’re covered by it depends on how a condition impacts your daily life. Many of those who are exempt from wearing masks have conditions covered by the Equality Act.

The government have decided to include exemptions, so whether you personally think that’s not reasonable is not really relevant. If you have an issue with this, take it up with the government, not those who are following the law and guidance.

The government did not want anyone who couldn’t wear a mask to also have to shield because this would add pressure to the infrastructure in place to support those who are ECV. Many of us were saying that more needed to be done for those shielding, or volunteering to help those who were shielding.

No, people shielded because they were vulnerable themselves, not because they were a risk.

@SinkGirl No where did I say it has to apply to everyone, I said I was confused by some of the reasons people were giving. There's a huge difference between personal confusion and stating that something has to apply to everyone.

With regards to the letter, my NHS psychiatrist wrote it. Just because you don't know anyone who has had such a letter written doesn't mean people aren't receiving them from their doctors when they are necessary. My psychiatrist would have to put far more effort into getting me out of a wrong fine and involvement with the police (which would very likely end up in a Crisis) then spending five minutes writing a letter.

@SinkGirl so what happened to your neighbour? Did you help her/him?

@flourella was your post aimed at me? About the NHS professional writing a letter when I am not actually exempt because I do wear one?

@GlobeUs yes. I'm not having a go at you, I'm just surprised; as I said in my post, and others have said, if a person can wear a mask, and put it on and take it off themselves, they are not exempt. It is clearly laid out in the guidelines. It is strange that an NHS doctor wouldn't know that, and write a letter for someone who can and does wear one.

I actually can't wear one and I couldn't get a doctor's letter, although I do have one from the provider of the supported accommodation in which I live due to my severe mental illness.

I get that you dint like my wording, but the conditions which make people CEC and CV are covered just as much as other conditions. And it is definitely disablism to put such propel at risk of death.

This isn't solely a question of ableism, because the victims here are the at-risk disabled.

It is not reasonable for one person's adjustment to be another (vulnerable, disabled) person's risk of death

I am not going to rise to the what-about-ery of needing to take it up with the government, as my comments are addressed to @MNHQ because this is a thread about posting standards on this site.

And if and when MNHQ make a decision about postings on thus subject, I am asking them to remember that there are more than one set of interests of the disabled that are relevant. And it would be wrong, and disablist, to ride roughshod over the interests of the most vulnerable.

@flourella Will DM you.

[quote bendmeoverbackwards]**@SinkGirl so what happened to your neighbour? Did you help her/him?[/quote]
Yes of course we did! I can’t generally volunteer to shop for people since I’ve got my hands full with disabled twins who were at home most of last year, but have tried to make sure he’s okay and has everything he needs without putting him at risk as he’s very vulnerable already.

"No, people shielded because they were vulnerable themselves, not because they were a risk"

That is a key point, people will shield because that is protecting them.

Wearing a mask is protecting others from them, so that is lower priority for them.

Wearing a mask is protecting others from them

Masks do also protect the person wearing them.