To ask the mask police to please PLEASE stop

[PennyDreadfuI]

Another mask thread but I'm not going to apologise because I'm absolutely at the end of my tether with this sort of thing.

I can't wear a mask because I have trigeminal neuralgia and I've lost count of the stares, comments and filthy looks I've had (and yes, I do wear a lanyard, even though I'm not keen on advertising the fact that I have a hidden health condition). I've heard of people not being allowed on buses, being challenged by staff to explain their reason for exemption and being told they can't enter shops despite being exempt (none of which is legal). I've been told I should wear a visor (I can't, and they're next to useless anyway - Scotland have just banned them unless they're worn with a mask), that I should just stay at home (I can't and neither do government guidelines suggest I should), that I shouldn't use buses (I don't drive and can't walk long distances or cycle because I have inflammatory arthritis) and that I'm selfish (I'm not - if I could wear a mask, I would).

I understand this is a contentious issue but please, can people just think for a minute before they judge or comment? Exemptions are there for a reason - those who are sticklers for The Rules should surely accept and respect this one, too. It's awful that people are too scared to go out for fear of what's essentially discrimination.

The pandemic is bad enough by itself - let's not lose our sense of empathy and humanity, too.

@PennyDreadfuI

Or this.

I'd like to see them try, the coward.

Let’s face it, there’s never going to be agreement between someone who thinks that no vulnerable person should ever have to encounter someone not wearing a mask and who wants or needs to be able to go out, and someone who cannot wear a mask and who wants or needs to be able to go out

There is a solution though.

Those who cannot wear masks stay minimum of 2m away from everyone else, and only go into enclosed spaces when essential/important for the minimum time (and at 2m+)

The thingthzt needs to be avoided is people who are not wearing masks going to the closer proximities that are OK only for the mitigated.

@ITSNONEOFYOURDAMNBUSINESS

Have NCd for this.

Yesterday whilst I was with my baby in a local shopping centre I was confronted by a man who filmed me whilst demanding to know why I wasn’t wearing a mask. I carried on walking, he followed me for 30 seconds or so (still filming and harassing me) and then turned his attention to some other non-compliant member of the public.

The reason I don’t wear a mask is because I was the victim of a violent rape, my attacker covered my mouth and nose with his hand so I couldn’t scream or breathe, and I nearly suffocated. Since then being forced to wear any kind of face covering has triggered flashbacks and severe panic attacks. So I don’t wear one.

Should I have to tell that story to every random stranger who shoves his phone in my face and demands to know why I’m not wearing a mask? Should I have to explain it to you, @NoMoreFlowers, if you decide to “challenge” me? Perhaps I should just wear a t-shirt that says I DON’T WEAR A MASK BECAUSE I WAS RAPED in big black letters so every can see? Or alternatively I could just become a prisoner in my own home and not venture outside, not go to the shops, not take my baby to the park?

No. I shouldn’t have to do that. Because it’s got less than fuck all to do with anyone else.

Presumably that video is now doing the rounds on social media, where I and anyone else that bastard chose to pick on will no doubt be criticised and insulted by yet more people we don’t know who think it is their place to judge us, whilst congratulating him for taking a stand against the “snowflakes”.

Meanwhile, after being yelled at and followed by a random strange man whilst alone with my baby I had a panic attack and vomited in the street, and had to call my husband and ask him to stop working and come and pick us up. Last night I had nightmares and flashbacks of the attack and woke up screaming. I certainly don’t want to go out again any time soon so I may as well be a prisoner in my own home anyway.

I'm so sorry. I'm a mask wearer myself but that sort of behaviour is fucking creepy and intrusive and helps no-one.

@LillianBland

LillianBland According to MN we should all stay home or just die*

Who said that?

On multiple threads posters say that the extremely vulnerable should have to stay at home because everyone has sacrificed enough in order to protect us and now we should stay at home and let everyone else get back to normal (I've given an example of this above).

Also on multiple threads posters state that the people who are most vulnerable would have died within a year anyway so why has the country sacrificed so much to save the lives of people who, according to MN posters, were going to die soon anyway. The implication being our lives don't matter as much as everyone else's. These comments abound on the Covid threads. Have a look and you will see them

But no one on this thread has said that, so why mention it, thus implying otherwise? Very disingenuous of you, and I speak as someone with vulnerable children.

Disingenuous in what way? I didn't say that anyone on this thread had said it.

I'm so intrigued as to why people are defending the rights of people who can't, or won't wear masks, claiming disability discrimination when actually many people who can't wear masks wouldn't be classed as having a disability and yet don't bat an eyelid that actual disabled people are being discriminated against because they are extremely clinically vulnerable. Apparently it's fine to tell this group of people to stay at home, to give up their jobs, to not see family, to get off of public transport multiple times across one journey, to spend hours getting to and from work, to buy contact lenses rather than wear glasses all in order to accommodate people who aren't wearing masks meanwhile the vulnerable people must not expect any accommodation at all.

Frankly I wish the paranoid would stay I , not those who are exempt. No need to get within two metres of someone not wearing a mask, stop bothering them and move on!
This.
Was on lots of petrol stations yesterday, only a few masks, and those wearing them were perfectly normal and polite and no dirty looks or challenges.
People challenging are harassing and bullying and should be asked to leave shops.

@Laiste

The quote by *@ComtesseDeSpair* doesn't say anything about thinking the vulnerable should ''just die'' I admit i haven't read the other thread but i have just read that quote about 3 times to check.

The poster is saying that they think the highly vulnerable should stay at home. Similar to the feeling that those who are unable to wear a mask shouldn't be allowed into shops, no? ...

It's a bit off, by the way, to quote a post from another thread thereby accusing them of inferring something as vile as them wanting the vulnerable dead, without giving the poster a heads up.

I have not inferred that poster said they want people dead. I was being asked for proof of where people had said the vulnerable should stay home or that we are going to die anyway so why should the country have to protect us.

I've given an example of someone saying we should stay at home. I've linked to the thread and quoted the whole post. I've not edited it, misquoted or pretended it said anything other than what it said.

Is it acceptable then to tell the vulnerable they should stay at home "under house arrest"? Why aren't you as outraged at that as you are at the suggestion non mask wearers should stay at home?

“ Those who cannot wear masks stay minimum of 2m away from everyone else, and only go into enclosed spaces when essential/important for the minimum time (and at 2m+)”

People wearing masks are supposed to be doing exactly this too

''Hearhoovesthinkzebras - I'm so intrigued as to why people are defending the rights of people who can't, or won't wear masks''

No one is defending the rights of people who wont wear masks, which is why you're confused and intrigued

You are lumping the 'wont' and the can't together. You're colours are showing now.

@SexTrainGlue

Let’s face it, there’s never going to be agreement between someone who thinks that no vulnerable person should ever have to encounter someone not wearing a mask and who wants or needs to be able to go out, and someone who cannot wear a mask and who wants or needs to be able to go out

There is a solution though.

Those who cannot wear masks stay minimum of 2m away from everyone else, and only go into enclosed spaces when essential/important for the minimum time (and at 2m+)

The thingthzt needs to be avoided is people who are not wearing masks going to the closer proximities that are OK only for the mitigated.

Exactly

I was reading the govt. guidelines yesterday and they are so broad. I understand why, because the govt. wants to exempt everyone who needs an exemption. But as always with broad guidelines, they cover such a wide pool of people.

I'm technically exempt under the guidelines but in reality, I can wear a mask because my condition is well-controlled. My Dad who has moderate COPD is also exempt- but he can currently tolerate wearing a mask.

It's a catch-22 situation, because you're relying on people's cooperation and there's always some who take the piss, which is totally unfair on those who are truly unable to wear masks.

I suppose the only solution would be a medical certificate, but that's not the law atm.

@Laiste

''Hearhoovesthinkzebras - I'm so intrigued as to why people are defending the rights of people who can't, or won't wear masks''

No one is defending the rights of people who wont wear masks, which is why you're confused and intrigued

You are lumping the 'wont' and the can't together. You're colours are showing now.

The can't people argue against any measures that could distinguish them from the won't people. They are lumping themselves in the same category.

If you can't wear a mask because you are exempt why wouldn't you want a scheme whereby the won't people could be identified and dealt with leaving you to quietly get about your business?

Either that or there needs to be something put in place that means the extremely vulnerable can protect themselves from the risks posed by those not wearing masks.

It's not as easy as telling us to stay away. Look at a supermarket checkout. Customers are not six feet away from the cashiers. How can I, as a cashier, get six feet away from a non mask wearing customer?

Hears this is what you wrote:

According to MN we should all stay home or just die.

Now, if you're going to engage in this sort of hyperbole you can't then expect anyone to take what you say seriously after that i'm afraid.

Tweaking your meaning and now even quoting other peoples posts to try to back yourself up from other threads isn't really helping.

@DeepTreacle

“ Those who cannot wear masks stay minimum of 2m away from everyone else, and only go into enclosed spaces when essential/important for the minimum time (and at 2m+)”

People wearing masks are supposed to be doing exactly this too

No, in certain circumstances it's 1 metre + (meaning 1 metre plus a mask) but non mask wearing people aren't following that.

If you can't wear a mask because you are exempt why wouldn't you want a scheme whereby the won't people could be identified and dealt with leaving you to quietly get about your business?

A scheme? What scheme do you suggest? A lanyard perhaps? A compulsory one? Like the ones which lots of posters have explained doesn't stop them getting challenged or abused?

Any other suggestions?

However, it is not acceptable for those who cannot wear masks to be eg barred from public transport (Where it is harder to maintain 2+m) any more than vulnerable people should be. But really, the risk needs to be viewed as an overall thing, not as a direct “you are not wearing a mask so you will infect me and I will die”. The chances of encountering someone not wearing a mask, who has Covid-19, and them passing it on to me are tiny. I’m far far more likely to have increased risks (and not just Covid-19) from people who are wearing masks but STILL not washing their hands properly after going to the loo.

@Laiste

Hears this is what you wrote:

According to MN we should all stay home or just die.

Now, if you're going to engage in this sort of hyperbole you can't then expect anyone to take what you say seriously after that i'm afraid.

Tweaking your meaning and now even quoting other peoples posts to try to back yourself up from other threads isn't really helping.

I'm not tweaking anything. It has been across MN since March that the extremely vulnerable would all have died soon anyway and that the country has sacrificed enough to protect those who are likely to die soon anyway (conveniently ignoring the fact that it isn't correct) I and other posters have vehemently argued against it. The implication being our lives matter less and our deaths matter less.

I gave an example of one of my points - that the vulnerable should stay at home.

Funny how you aren't criticising the view expressed in that post, only having a go at me. Do you agree with that post then? Is your view that the vulnerable should be kept at home under house arrest?

“ No, in certain circumstances it's 1 metre + (meaning 1 metre plus a mask) but non mask wearing people aren't following that.”

Fair enough, but neither are many of those wearing masks IME. Prior to the mandate the only people who came closer to me than would have been socially acceptable before coronavirus were those wearing masks. And the point is that in most circumstances 2m is supposed to be for everyone

@Laiste

If you can't wear a mask because you are exempt why wouldn't you want a scheme whereby the won't people could be identified and dealt with leaving you to quietly get about your business?

A scheme? What scheme do you suggest? A lanyard perhaps? A compulsory one? Like the ones which lots of posters have explained doesn't stop them getting challenged or abused?

Any other suggestions?

A lanyard that anyone can buy from eBay isn't a scheme.

We need certified exemptions from a Dr to prove you are exempt. Why should I be suffering the discomfort and inconvenience of wearing a mask in order to protect people who refuse to wear one, for no good reason?

@DeepTreacle

“ No, in certain circumstances it's 1 metre + (meaning 1 metre plus a mask) but non mask wearing people aren't following that.”

Fair enough, but neither are many of those wearing masks IME. Prior to the mandate the only people who came closer to me than would have been socially acceptable before coronavirus were those wearing masks. And the point is that in most circumstances 2m is supposed to be for everyone

The point is, that as the country opens back up two metres isn't practical. On public transport, in hairdressers, even in shops (at the checkout a customer isn't two metres from the cashier). In these cases it's one metre plus (the plus being other mitigation like a mask).

Are people who don't wear a mask standing two metres away from everyone?

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras - I’m not going to bun fight about this because I have better things to do. I’m pretty Teflon-coated and if I really thought that vulnerable people should just go and die, that’s exactly what I would have posted. I don’t think that, so I didn’t. For clarity, that particular thread quite literally asked if we should all be placed under indefinite house arrest - that phrase - to protect the vulnerable. I responded that I didn’t think we should, but that if some people felt sufficiently vulnerable that they thought house arrest was the answer, the onus should be on them to put themselves under it. I didn’t start the thread. I didn’t opine house arrest for anyone. I responded to the question asked by the poster who began that thread, using the language they chose to use.

I don’t know why I’ve been quoted on a thread about mask wearing which I didn’t contribute to previously. I quite happily wear a mask while out and about and generally consider it something which is no more than mildly uncomfortable for me but which could possibly benefit others. I have no further opinion about masks.

ComtesseDeSpair

I was asked to provide proof of a post that showed posters had the view that the vulnerable should stay at home. That is what you said in that post. I never said you thought people should die. I posted your entire quote - it is very evident you didn't say anything about dying, but you did say the vulnerable should stay at home, under house arrest I believe you said. That is what I was showing - that some posters hold the view that the vulnerable should stay at home.

Oh, and you didn't say if people felt they were sufficiently vulnerable that house arrest was the answer then they should do it, you said

If there are still people alive who are very vulnerable, I think the onus is on them to put themselves under house arrest to help themselves rather than everyone around them do so.

You think the onus should be on the very vulnerable (if any are still alive) to put ourselves under house arrest.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras nobody has said that the vulnerable should 'just die'. Absolutely nobody. I suppose MN could have deleted a comment which explicitly said that and rightly so because it's vile.

As is insisting that people have said that when they absolutely haven't. No amount of backtracking alters the fact that you wrote that people have said the vulnerable should just die, incidentally.

If you can't wear a mask because you are exempt why wouldn't you want a scheme whereby the won't people could be identified and dealt with leaving you to quietly get about your business?

And there is a scheme. We wear lanyards. We still get abuse, threats, are filmed, are castigated, are told we don't care, are told we want vulnerable people to 'just die'.

It's not another scheme that's needed. What's required is for people to be less judgemental, nasty and lacking in empathy.

Are people who don't wear a mask standing two metres away from everyone?

I am, but I can't stop people wearing masks standing closer to me. Or sitting next to me on the bus (which is happening more and more now the local bus drivers are packing them in again). Or standing so close to me in a queue (as has just happened in Aldi) that I can feel their breath on my neck.

I can't be held responsible for others' choices.

“ The point is, that as the country opens back up two metres isn't practical. On public transport, in hairdressers, even in shops (at the checkout a customer isn't two metres from the cashier). In these cases it's one metre plus (the plus being other mitigation like a mask).

Are people who don't wear a mask standing two metres away from everyone?”

This is exactly what I mean by someone who thinks they should never have to encounter people who cannot wear masks, and want/need to be able to go out, not being able to ever be in agreement with people who cannot wear masks and want/need to be able to go out. FWIW I don’t think people without masks should be excluded from the 1m guidelines, and I appreciate that this may be interpreted as me being someone who thinks vulnerable people should die (I don’t think that). I have outlined my reasoning earlier as to why I don’t think much store should be set by any reduction in risk through other people wearing masks.