To think this is unacceptable?

[flaviaritt]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9048759/Family-kicked-United-flight-New-Jersey-toddler-refused-wear-mask.html

This family were forced to leave a flight home because their two year old wouldn’t ‘comply’ with mask-wearing.

She’s 2.

Has the world gone mad? Surely it’s common sense that a young child should not be forced into a mask? Surely it’s a violation of the rights of the child to insist upon this?

The only people forcing this child into discomfort and distress were her parents who chose to book a flight where they knew she would have to wear a mask.

But the parents didn’t force her. So that’s rubbish. And the airline issued a policy saying she had to wear it, and still allowed her to board, so yes, they are responsible if she suffers (partly).

It's a lack of common sense in a policy that's all - it's not even close to a violation of rights.

2 is a toddler. A baby is a baby.

I think 2 is still a baby. A very young child not old enough to understand what’s happening or why their parents are forcing them into a face covering. And you can think whatever you like about that. I think differently.

@flaviaritt

The only people forcing this child into discomfort and distress were her parents who chose to book a flight where they knew she would have to wear a mask.

But the parents didn’t force her. So that’s rubbish. And the airline issued a policy saying she had to wear it, and still allowed her to board, so yes, they are responsible if she suffers (partly).

You're being obtuse.

They put her on a plane where they knew she would have to wear a mask. They allowed her to board assuming she'd be following the rules like everyone else!

They are not recommended for under 5s due to choking hazard.

@flaviaritt

2 is a toddler. A baby is a baby.

I think 2 is still a baby. A very young child not old enough to understand what’s happening or why their parents are forcing them into a face covering. And you can think whatever you like about that. I think differently.

Babies have injections from weeks old. We don't deny them because the babies don't understand what's happening. But that's to protect them, so presumably you're OK with that. It's when it's to protect other people you're not.

they should understand that they do have a part in the responsibility for their own policies

I suspect they're perfectly happy to take responsibility for their policy. It's one which warns people very clearly that they shouldn't book with them if they or any member of their party aged over 2 have difficulty with masks. Tell us again how that causes violence?

Toddlers try to refuse to do a lot of things. Wear a hat, sit in a shopping trolley, sit in a car seat, get dressed. They do what they're told. End of.

@MaryLeeOnHigh

they should understand that they do have a part in the responsibility for their own policies

I suspect they're perfectly happy to take responsibility for their policy. It's one which warns people very clearly that they shouldn't book with them if they or any member of their party aged over 2 have difficulty with masks. Tell us again how that causes violence?

They did take responsibility by following through with the policy. It's the parents who didn't.

@flaviaritt

What violence? You can't just say that as if its fact and not your weird opinion.

I can say what I like. I think forcing a distressed child into a mask is a violent act.

The airline doesn't force distressed children into masks. Nor does it force their parents to force them into masks.

@flaviaritt

Wheresmykimchi

You have missed my point. I am not comparing the two things. I am saying that the airline cannot abdicate its responsibility for any harm done by the actions of the parents, when they mandated those actions as a condition of travel.

That would work if the airline forced the parents to travel with them. Self-evidently, they don't.

I would rather a ban on young children flying than see little kids being abused

You're the only one here who thinks a child wearing a harmless bit of cloth over their face is abusive. And it isn't. You're out of step with opinion.
You're just another drama queen anti masker, like the mother

Yes, if necessary. I would rather a ban on young children flying than see little kids being abused.

That's fine, then. They ban children who can't wear masks from flying on their planes, as happened here. You should be happy.

My friend lives in a US state where her two year old has to wear a mask all day in daycare, and at all public playgrounds.

I was quite shocked when I heard that tbh. I think its too much, at that age children are learning emotional regulation and how to play and share, not being able to see each other's faces is a huge issue.

I also think evidence suggests two year olds don't transmit as much due to their smaller lungs. My own 2 year old was exposed to another toddler in childcare who was COVID-positive, they are best buddies so I'm sure were licking each other all day but nobody in their bubble tested positive.

I think a flight is one thing, as has been pointed out its optional, but I do think the lower limit on mask wearing in the states is problematic.

Change mask to nappy. What's your take on it now?

@MaryLeeOnHigh

Agreed. The airline couldn't win that.

If they forced the child into a mask that would be wrong. But not letting them on the plane was also wrong. So at a guess Flavia would have liked them to break the policy that the parents agreed to in the first place and not insist on the child wearing a mask to travel and put everyone else at risk.

Where does this end though Flavia?

What about someone with learning difficulties? Just didn't fancy it that day? You are on a slippery slope when you claim a 2 year olds rights are more important than someone else's. What about the right to be protected from covid? What about all then people who signed up for that flight expecting precautions to be taken ?

Also @flaviaritt, what about the doctor sitting beside the two year old who couldn't go without flying to a dinner who contracts covid and gives it to half the staff and patients at the hospital?

Who's to blame for that?

The child? I'd wager you will say no.

The airline? Nope. , Because they made a policy about wearing masks to prevent this , the policy you want them to break.

That only leaves the parents.b

You're just another drama queen anti masker, like the mother

Except that isn’t even slightly true. I wear a mask without complaint. I’m not 2.

@MaryLeeOnHigh

Yes, if necessary. I would rather a ban on young children flying than see little kids being abused.

That's fine, then. They ban children who can't wear masks from flying on their planes, as happened here. You should be happy.

Exactly!

Should putting children in car seats be banned? I certainly had to fight mine to get them in

Anyway, I think it’s clear that there are some off-the-scale extremists posting on this thread. Some people who have all lost perspective about what is acceptable. That’s sad.

But I really do have some stuff to do.

@flaviaritt

Anyway, I think it’s clear that there are some off-the-scale extremists posting on this thread. Some people who have all lost perspective about what is acceptable. That’s sad.

But I really do have some stuff to do.

There are some extremists Flavia, but it's not us.

And if she wasn’t happy? Would you force her? What about if your 2 year old doesn't want to wear a seat belt? Do you force her or do you let her do what she likes on a car journey? How about if she says no when she is due an injection, does she get to decide or do you parent her? Say she needed a blood test, a transfusion, do you let the 2 year old decide?

@flaviaritt

MaryLeeOnHigh

The logical contortions you will go to to justify this as startling. What the hell does decor have to do with this? Yes, the airline is responsible for the basic wellbeing of its passengers. If someone boards with someone else hitting or assaulting them, the airline can’t just say “It wasn’t me.” If someone has a heart attack on board, they have to get them medical help. They are not just incidental observers here. They have a duty of care.

Oh, the irony, from a poster who is contending that an airline that forces no-one to travel with them is thereby responsible for anything done by passengers who don't like their rules.

As you well know, the reference to decor, food, destinations etc related to your contention that the airline is automatically responsible for any harm done by virtue of the choices it makes. The inescapable logical consequence of this is that it would have to be responsible for any and every inconvenience caused to someone as a result, no matter how indirectly, or any and every choice. The ridiculousness of that demonstrates the ridiculousness of your contentions.

@flaviaritt

Anyway, I think it’s clear that there are some off-the-scale extremists posting on this thread. Some people who have all lost perspective about what is acceptable. That’s sad.

But I really do have some stuff to do.

I think that is yourself you are referring to as an off-the-scale extremist.