How should masks be enforced in public?

[User158340]

Indoors in general (shops, public transport etc).

I don't believe in making it mandatory because there are people who are genuinely exempt but there's so many piss takers.

There should be 'medically exempt' badges dished out by GP's only, on prescription essentially.

This should have been GP led from the get go, not trusting the British public. We see where that gets us.

BUT do they really work?
I dont see any people without a mask indoors and our borough has one of the highest no of cases.
There doesnt seem to be any difference compared to Spring when they were not mandatory.
I think it just make some people feel better, but they dont acheive much.

@Underhisi

It's interesting that not a single person going on about not allowing people in without masks has agreed this should apply to children and babies too. No response when they are asked about this. If it was actually about safety of others they would agree with this.

Fascinating, that.

@Underhisi,

'No response when they are asked about this. If it was actually about safety of others they would agree with this.'

Covid was not thought to be spread easily by babies and children, which is why people were more comfortable with unmasked babies and children.

The new variant may be different, but I still suspect that babies are far safer, having far fewer ACE2 receptors.

Children should certainly be wearing masks over an age where it is safe to do so, given the new strain.

Underhisi

Because this thread is referring to adults claiming exemption on med grounds which in turn invites others to jump on the bandwagon.

Babies are a whole different issue and most would agree it’s not practical for a child under the age of 2 but for children over 2 I would say yes.

So I’ve took your bait have at it.

[quote TheReluctantPhoenix]@Underhisi,

'No response when they are asked about this. If it was actually about safety of others they would agree with this.'

Covid was not thought to be spread easily by babies and children, which is why people were more comfortable with unmasked babies and children.

The new variant may be different, but I still suspect that babies are far safer, having far fewer ACE2 receptors.

Children should certainly be wearing masks over an age where it is safe to do so, given the new strain.[/quote]
It's not safe for me to wear a mask (age is surely irrelevant where safety is concerned). So if it's not safe for young children to wear a mask and therefore they shouldn't have to wear one, surely it should follow that anyone for whom a mask is unsafe shouldn't have to wear one? Do you believe that children who can't wear one because it's unsafe should stay at home?

@reformedcharacters

Underhisi

Because this thread is referring to adults claiming exemption on med grounds which in turn invites others to jump on the bandwagon.

Babies are a whole different issue and most would agree it’s not practical for a child under the age of 2 but for children over 2 I would say yes.

So I’ve took your bait have at it.

It's neither practical nor safe for exempt people to wear a mask. What's hard to understand about this?

"Babies are a whole different issue and most would agree it’s not practical for a child under the age of 2 but for children over 2 I would say yes."

Not being practical is irrelevant. If it is not safe for others they shouldn't be in there. Their parents should do the right thing and think of others. There are adults who it is equally not practical for by the way.

It would help if people who are “wearing” them would do so properly. I was in Morrison’s today. Literally 25% of folks I passed had their noses out...remarkable anatomy they have that they don’t breathe through their nose at all...I wonder what they think noses are for? Picking? Perching designer sunglasses on? Anyone?

[quote MerciSeat]@lockeddownandcrazy absolutely not. It's a ludicrous idea. But some people here think it's a brilliant idea, rather than be able to go out to work and earn our own living.[/quote]
Because by you going out to work/shop etc without a mask you are choosing to put yourselves above other people's welfare. You are risking their health by your self declared exemption.

It's neither practical nor safe for exempt people to wear a mask. What's hard to understand about this?

How? Example?

My conditions make it unpleasant but not unsafe?

Do you mean people with panic attacks? Surely those people are at risk of those all the time mask or not.

Babies aren’t a whole different issue. They’re just fine in your eyes because you have limited empathy and understanding for people with conditions that stop them wearing a mask. You recognise that it would be ludicrous to force a baby to wear a mask and that it would be impractical and unfair to stop parents entering shops with young kids. You just refuse to see that in the case of exempt adults and would rather tell them that they can’t go to shops or use transports. If it were just because you were scared of transmission, you would be equally scared of maskless small children as you would exempt adults.

@reformedcharacters

It's neither practical nor safe for exempt people to wear a mask. What's hard to understand about this?

How? Example?

My conditions make it unpleasant but not unsafe?

Do you mean people with panic attacks? Surely those people are at risk of those all the time mask or not.

Seriously? How about you listen to the people with a condition that stops them from wearing a mask rather than playing doctor? There was a thread the other day where a woman explained that wearing a mask triggered seizures. There were still idiots on that thread telling her she could just wear one anyway.

The majority of babies would throw masks off as they do socks and in the case of newborns their faces should never be covered because of the risk of SIDS.

Why are people determined to use babies as poor example of why they should also be exempt?

My son couldn't keep a mask on. Most of his class (teenagers) couldn't keep a mask on.

The point is (to those who think there should be no exemptions) unless you apply that to everyone because everyone could spread it, you are going to look discriminatory.

*Leanandmean31

Have you even read my previous posts? I AM one of those people.

Other than it causing something as serous as seizures which is rare I can’t see how for the majority of people, myself included, how it is anything other than unpleasant.

@lockeddownandcrazy my exemption isn't self declared. It's endorsed by my neurologist and GP. Unfortunately they do not provide certification of this however, in line with government guidelines. But they have both agreed that I cannot wear a mask.

Why do people not realise that it is a trade off of rights here and that your right to shop unmasked does not trump the rights of the old and vulnerable to go out into the world without a substantial risk of catching an illness which could well be fatal to them.

Every extra risk increases the current caseload of the NHS, which in turn means more deaths. It also delays the time when we can get cases down to a level where the old and vulnerable feel safe to go out.

What could be more ableist than condemning the old and vulnerable to house arrest because you demand the right to shop unmasked? Especially now that you know that within weeks (!!) these vulnerable people will be vaccinated and the rules will loosen and no-one will care about unmasked shoppers.

How about a little more compassion for the weak?

@reformedcharacters

It's neither practical nor safe for exempt people to wear a mask. What's hard to understand about this?

How? Example?

My conditions make it unpleasant but not unsafe?

Do you mean people with panic attacks? Surely those people are at risk of those all the time mask or not.

Speaking for myself - wearing a mask triggers attacks which can leave me unconscious. Surely you can see how this is unsafe?

@Leanandmean31

Babies aren’t a whole different issue. They’re just fine in your eyes because you have limited empathy and understanding for people with conditions that stop them wearing a mask. You recognise that it would be ludicrous to force a baby to wear a mask and that it would be impractical and unfair to stop parents entering shops with young kids. You just refuse to see that in the case of exempt adults and would rather tell them that they can’t go to shops or use transports. If it were just because you were scared of transmission, you would be equally scared of maskless small children as you would exempt adults.

Precisely.

MerciSeat

I’ve already said something serious like causing seizures is about the only reason and quite rare.

@TheReluctantPhoenix

Why do people not realise that it is a trade off of rights here and that your right to shop unmasked does not trump the rights of the old and vulnerable to go out into the world without a substantial risk of catching an illness which could well be fatal to them.

Every extra risk increases the current caseload of the NHS, which in turn means more deaths. It also delays the time when we can get cases down to a level where the old and vulnerable feel safe to go out.

What could be more ableist than condemning the old and vulnerable to house arrest because you demand the right to shop unmasked? Especially now that you know that within weeks (!!) these vulnerable people will be vaccinated and the rules will loosen and no-one will care about unmasked shoppers.

How about a little more compassion for the weak?

Again, I'm speaking for myself here, but if I wear a mask and have an attack and an ambulance is called, surely that increases the NHS caseload AND puts me in close contact with people I could have otherwise avoided? The paramedics can't SD and neither can the poor shop/transport staff who may have to clean up after I've wet myself.

Just stay away from each other. If you see someone with a mask don't come near, just as I don't go near you.

Yes, a little compassion would go a long way.

Who are these "piss takers"? I've never heard anyone admit to being one. Unless you're making assumptions about people you see in the supermarket?
I seldom enter supermarkets but I can easily point you to the piss-takers on public transport. They are the ones wearing masks around their chins, or who hastily put a mask on with no apparent ill effects the second that a guard or police officer comes into view, removing it swiftly as soon as the member of staff is out of sight. Then there was the group of drunken forty-somethings who had masks on while moving to their seats (comparatively low risk as you aren't spending prolonged time in close proximity to people), removed them for the half hour they were on the move (high risk as you are sat next to complete strangers for a prolonged period of time) and then put them back on to leave the train. Stupid or what? The same train had plenty of other examples of mask-less drunks. Piss-takers are also the ones most likely to get aggressive if challenged (or even if someone looks at them funny), unlike the genuinely exempt who for the most part are polite when asked.

One pattern I noticed a lot before the latest lockdown was that where couples in their 20s were travelling, the girl would be wearing her mask properly while her boyfriend wore it around his chin. Nose-peakers however were more likely to be middle-aged men.

All the back and forth about masks, the truth is is that it's actually a 'face covering' that's required. So for those who have anxiety attacks with fabric on the face, can't a visor be worn instead? It's fine for hairdressers!

@MolyHolyGuacamole

All the back and forth about masks, the truth is is that it's actually a 'face covering' that's required. So for those who have anxiety attacks with fabric on the face, can't a visor be worn instead? It's fine for hairdressers!

Possibly, but some people who can't wear masks can't wear visors either. And the government have stated that visors can't be worn alone.

@MerciSeat I never knew that. My hairdresser wore only a visor and I thought that was ok!