Mask rage???

[OoohShiny]

Kenny, with all due respect I am a grown woman who doesn't need a lecture from you on how to post. Like it or not, mask wearing has been politicized to the point that it has become dangerous for those who choose to wear masks for health and the safety of others, as this thread so aptly demonstrates.And up is down, and black is white, and nothing makes sense anymore.

Post what you want and I shall do the same.

It could be argued that politicisation works both ways - it has also become difficult for people who don't wear masks to just go about their day without disapproving stares and actual verbal confrontation, regardless of the reason they are not wearing masks.

For example:

Mask exemptions must be clearer, rape campaigner says

Georgina Fallows is asking government to protect from harassment people who can't wear face coverings.

www.bbc.co.uk

A rape survivor is calling for government to "educate" the public about face-covering exemptions, as England moves into a second lockdown.

Having her mouth covered still prompts traumatic flashbacks for Georgina Fallows, who was attacked some years ago.

And now, she feels re-traumatised by being verbally abused in public when she doesn't wear a mask.

.

"My attacker literally pulled me off the street and raped me," Ms Fallows says.

"Having something in front of my mouth feels like his hand."

She has severe post-traumatic stress disorder and flashbacks, sometimes so extreme she has been sedated by paramedics.

.

People who cannot wear a mask because of a physical or mental illness or disability are also exempt.

There is a note that can be downloaded from the government website.

But Ms Fallows is concerned it is not viewed as "official".

And when she has shown her exemption pass after being challenged, people will often not accept it.

The 30-year-old solicitor has been "screamed at" for not wearing a mask.

And one woman accused "people like me of killing her father".

.

For now, though, she avoids shops and transport wherever possible for fear of being verbally abused.

"People think it's just a bit uncomfortable," wearing a mask.

But for Ms Fallows, it can be a "medical emergency", resulting in three- or four-hour flashbacks that end with her being restrained and unconscious.

And it is a problem shared by people with a range of other mental-health conditions, disabilities, autism, and Alzheimer's disease.

.

A Disability Rights UK survey of 350 people uncovered reports of people fearing hate crimes and feeling like prisoners in their own homes.

Difficulties wearing face coverings particularly affect people with mental-health conditions, sensory disorders and hidden disabilities such as autism, its research suggests.

It is this sort of thing that informs my position of accepting whatever people want to do WRT masks without judgement.

A person commenting along the lines of 'they obviously should be wearing a mask' implies that one can 'tell' what someone's physical and mental health situation is from a distance without even interacting with them - which is plainly impossible.

Are some people not wearing a mask being obnoxious? Sure. But then 'disabled' people can be obnoxious too and they may even be being obnoxious as a reaction to abuse they have been getting about not wearing a mask.

 

[House Cat]

If everyone would wear a mask in a responsible manner, the occasional non mask wearer would probably be left alone under the assumption that they have asthma, etc. The people who aren’t wearing masks as a matter of opinion are ruining it for everyone.

 

[missy]

it has also become difficult for people who don't wear masks to just go about their day without disapproving stares and actual verbal confrontation, regardless of the reason they are not wearing masks.

But that's just it @OoohShiny they very well might be putting others at risk. So there is no good reason for being out in public and not wearing a mask if one is within a certain distance of others. Why is that concept hard to grasp? Do what you want as long as it doesn't affect others in a negative way. That is a mantra one should live by IMO.

I am not talking about the exception rather what should be done generally. There are always exceptions.

 

[OoohShiny]

Bingo.
Anti-mask?
Back of the line for any and all medical care. Medical personnel will get to you when - if - they have time and resources, once those who are trying to keep their communities safe have been attended to.

Should we also take this approach for those suffering from the effects of smoking?

or 'extreme' leisure activity accidents?

or single-vehicle accidents?

or DIY accidents?

[/devli's advocate]

 

[OoohShiny]

But that's just it @OoohShiny they very well might be putting others at risk. So there is no good reason for being out in public and not wearing a mask if one is within a certain distance of others. Why is that concept hard to grasp? Do what you want as long as it doesn't affect others in a negative way. That is a mantra one should live by IMO.

I am not talking about the exception rather what should be done generally. There are always exceptions.

But how do you know who the exceptions are?

What is a 'valid' exception?

Who determines what is a 'valid' exception?

 

[missy]

Should we also take this approach for those suffering from the effects of smoking?

There is a reason people are no longer allowed to smoke on airplanes, in restaurants etc. Because second hand smoke kills. Do what one wants as long as it doesn't affect others negatively.

 

[missy]

But how do you know who the exceptions are?

What is a 'valid' exception?

Who determines what is a 'valid' exception?

The exceptions should be few. And IMO perhaps those people need to stay away from others. Keeping themselves and others safe if one cannot or will not wear a mask. Food can be delivered. One can take walks outside away from others. We don't wear masks outside if there is plenty of space to be walked away from others. So one's freedom doesn't have to be curtailed very much if one doesn't want to wear a mask. Just don't go shopping indoors and stay away from other people. JMO of course.

We are in a pandemic. We must behave as responsible adults. That is what being a grown up entails. It's not just about you. It's about the welfare of others. Not such a hard concept to grasp. We should all give a dam* about others. The world would be a much better place if we all cared about our fellow human beings.

 

[chemgirl]

Should we also take this approach for those suffering from the effects of smoking?

or 'extreme' leisure activity accidents?

or single-vehicle accidents?

or DIY accidents?

[/devli's advocate]

None of those things directly hurt other people and fuel a public health crisis.

covid is unique in that one person’s negligence can create an outbreak in a community affecting hundreds of people.

Also to address your other post, when public health was originally evaluating who should be exempt from mask wearing, it was only people with a mental age of less than 5 years old and those requiring external oxygen. Both of those things are extremely obvious. Then all of the anti maskers came up with reasons so they could get away without wearing masks. For example why can’t the rape survivor in the article you quoted wear a plastic face shield if a mask invokes a fear response? Bet she could, but she’s choosing not to.

If someone was out in a face shield rather than a mask people would think medical condition rather than narcissistic and ignorant.

Saying that last one as someone with asthma who runs with a mask. My running group did an awareness campaign where we all ran a 10k in the hottest part of the summer wearing masks and pulse oximeters. Around 20 of us participated, all at different skill levels, and the lowest reading was 97% oxygen saturation. My sister was pregnant and even she managed it.

Wearing a mask isn’t a big deal.

 

[yssie]

Should we also take this approach for those suffering from the effects of smoking?

or 'extreme' leisure activity accidents?

or single-vehicle accidents?

or DIY accidents?

[/devli's advocate]

No.
None of those examples directly impact other people’s health.
Choosing to not wear a mask directly impacts other people’s health.

I deliberately chose the words “anti mask”, not “non wearer” - any deprioritization should not include people who have legitimate medical reasons to not wear one.

 

[yssie]

It could be argued that politicisation works both ways - it has also become difficult for people who don't wear masks to just go about their day without disapproving stares and actual verbal confrontation, regardless of the reason they are not wearing masks.

For example:

Mask exemptions must be clearer, rape campaigner says

Georgina Fallows is asking government to protect from harassment people who can't wear face coverings.

www.bbc.co.uk

It is this sort of thing that informs my position of accepting whatever people want to do WRT masks without judgement.

A person commenting along the lines of 'they obviously should be wearing a mask' implies that one can 'tell' what someone's physical and mental health situation is from a distance without even interacting with them - which is plainly impossible.

Are some people not wearing a mask being obnoxious? Sure. But then 'disabled' people can be obnoxious too and they may even be being obnoxious as a reaction to abuse they have been getting about not wearing a mask.

If everyone would wear a mask in a responsible manner, the occasional non mask wearer would probably be left alone under the assumption that they have asthma, etc. The people who aren’t wearing masks as a matter of opinion are ruining it for everyone.

THIS.

 

[OoohShiny]

Should we also take this approach for those suffering from the effects of smoking?

or 'extreme' leisure activity accidents?

or single-vehicle accidents?

or DIY accidents?

[/devli's advocate]

There is a reason people are no longer allowed to smoke on airplanes, in restaurants etc. Because second hand smoke kills. Do what one wants as long as it doesn't affect others negatively.

No.
None of those examples directly impact other people’s health.
Choosing to not wear a mask directly impacts other people’s health.

I think the point I was trying to make has maybe not come across.

If we are saying that a group of people doing one thing that increases their risk should have all medical care removed, why are we not proposing that removal for all activities that increase one's risk?

Is the suggestion that people must be punished for their choices WRT masks by refusing to treat them for unrelated illness, such as a broken leg or cancer?

Is that a reasoned and logical approach? Or one that could be interpreted as deliberately vindictive?

The logical extension of the above would seem to be that all people who use a car should have their medical care revoked - after all, tailpipe emissions have been shown to negatively effect people's health (the degree of which can be argued, in the same way it can with masks) so surely a car user (even just a passenger) should have their medical care revoked on that basis?

Or is the argument that we can do things that might kill people slowly but not do things that might kill people quickly?

 

[missy]

I think the point I was trying to make has maybe not come across.

If we are saying that a group of people doing one thing that increases their risk should have all medical care removed, why are we not proposing that removal for all activities that increase one's risk?

Is the suggestion that people must be punished for their choices WRT masks by refusing to treat them for unrelated illness, such as a broken leg or cancer?

Is that a reasoned and logical approach? Or one that could be interpreted as deliberately vindictive?

The logical extension of the above would seem to be that all people who use a car should have their medical care revoked - after all, tailpipe emissions have been shown to negatively effect people's health (the degree of which can be argued, in the same way it can with masks) so surely a car user (even just a passenger) should have their medical care revoked on that basis?

Or is the argument that we can do things that might kill people slowly but not do things that might kill people quickly?

I have not made that argument. I believe we are all entitled to medical care. It’s a right. Not a privilege. However everyone should work together. This pandemic needs everyone being as responsible as possible. We need to be a team against the pandemic. Not against each other.

 

[chemgirl]

I think the point I was trying to make has maybe not come across.

If we are saying that a group of people doing one thing that increases their risk should have all medical care removed, why are we not proposing that removal for all activities that increase one's risk?

Is the suggestion that people must be punished for their choices WRT masks by refusing to treat them for unrelated illness, such as a broken leg or cancer?

Is that a reasoned and logical approach? Or one that could be interpreted as deliberately vindictive?

The logical extension of the above would seem to be that all people who use a car should have their medical care revoked - after all, tailpipe emissions have been shown to negatively effect people's health (the degree of which can be argued, in the same way it can with masks) so surely a car user (even just a passenger) should have their medical care revoked on that basis?

Or is the argument that we can do things that might kill people slowly but not do things that might kill people quickly?

It’s not the logical approach because someone cutting themselves doing DIY is one person in hospital. They hurt nobody but themselves. Someone going out without a mask can cause many people to require medical care. They can kill other people. That’s a level selfishness that is completely different than going skiing or whatever.

I personally wouldn’t agree with refusing medical care to these people as a rule. However, if there is one ventilator or one dose of medication, they should not get it. Give it to someone who doesn’t tweet conspiracy theories and put
everyone around them in danger.

To be honest I see someone who willfully refuses to wear a mask as no better than a murderer on death row. None of them should be at the front of the line when resources are strained.

 

[OoohShiny]

It’s not the logical approach because someone cutting themselves doing DIY is one person in hospital. They hurt nobody but themselves. Someone going out without a mask can cause many people to require medical care. They can kill other people. That’s a level selfishness that is completely different than going skiing or whatever.

What about the drivers of vehicles emitting tailpipe emissions?

 

[OoohShiny]

I personally wouldn’t agree with refusing medical care to these people as a rule. However, if there is one ventilator or one dose of medication, they should not get it. Give it to someone who doesn’t tweet conspiracy theories and put everyone around them in danger.

If people who don't want to wear a mask were willing to sign a form stating they were happy to not be treated for any effects of SARS-CoV-2 or Covid-19 if it meant they were not compelled (legally or through societal pressure) to wear a mask, would that crystallisation of your position in a legal form be satisfactory?

(Can you also provide evidence showing the correlation between the people tweeting conspiracy theories and the people not wearing masks? )

 

[missy]

If people who don't want to wear a mask were willing to sign a form stating they were happy to not be treated for any effects of SARS-CoV-2 or Covid-19 if it meant they were not compelled (legally or through societal pressure) to wear a mask, would that crystallisation of your position in a legal form be satisfactory?

This is a big NO from me. That does nothing to help those who get Covid 19 from people who refuse to wear masks. For me it’s not about revenge. It’s about saving human lives.

 

[Cerulean]

I am sorry but I do find the notion that healthcare should be prioritized for mask wearers only totally barbaric.

“Sir, I see that you can’t breathe, but I’m going withhold this respirator until you tell whether or not you’ve really been wearing a mask!”



This attitude is not what the medical profession is about. It is not the medical practitioner’s job to be judge, jury and executioner...to play god and determine who lives or who dies. This is a very slippery slope. We do not live in a society that tolerates “eye for an eye” retribution. We know better than that. I am grateful to live in a nation where provision of medical care isn’t used as a reward or punishment for being a good citizen. You all should be too.

Even people who are on death row, who commit heinous acts against others, still deserve medical care whether you think that’s fair or not.

People should of course wear masks unless another medical condition excludes them. It is their social responsibility. I will stand by that firmly. But I will not judge people who don’t, call them unilaterally selfish, or feel hatred. I will hope that they do better. And that also means that they shouldn’t be at the other end of the spear and treated with casual cruelty.

 

[Tekate]

I live in Texas, in Williamson Cty a staunchly red area, and I see no one wearing masks except a very few, I think we can all express our anecdotal insight. Since I live in very very red Williamson Cty I can tell you unequivocally that they aren't wearing masks. Now if I went south to Austin it could be different or not.. I notice that many millenials aren't wearing them, and in my huge big subdivision no mom, not one, not any old folks like me are wearing masks when passing me with my mask on, anecdotally I mentioned to a woman who was close to me to please put a mask on and she said to me and I quote, Why I am young I don't need to worry, but you are old.. from my view this is disgusting.

I totally agree.

I live in a staunchly blue city. And yet, I see swaths of people not wearing masks. There is no race, age group, gender, or other demographic identifier that seems to separate those that do wear masks and those that don’t.

In fact, almost all densely urban communities are blue in the USA. If they were successfully containing the virus, I’d buy that everyone wore masks. But they aren’t, and people don’t. It varies wildly neighborhood by neighborhood in my city and I can assure that it’s not due to party lines.

There is no need for any of us to add more fuel to a raging, polarizing fire and point the blame \ foist half the nation on the moral high ground

 

[Tekate]

I thought about that but I think it would look like Hannibal Lechter has a mask on..You could probably see the outline underneath..

for me it's the glasses thing, I hate that.. since I'm done with p/t I don't go out much anyway tho.

 

[chemgirl]

I am sorry but I do find the notion that healthcare should be prioritized for mask wearers only totally barbaric.

This attitude is not what the medical profession is about. It is not the medical practitioner’s job to be judge, jury and executioner...to play god and determine who lives or who dies. This is a very slippery slope. We do not live in a society that tolerates “eye for an eye” retribution. We know better than that.

Even people who are on death row, who commit heinous acts against others, still deserve medical care whether you think that’s fair or not.

People should of course wear masks unless another medical condition excludes them. It is their social responsibility. That does not mean however that those that don’t get to be at the other end of the spear and treated with casual cruelty.

I never said they shouldn’t get care period. My feeling is that if resources become limited and doctors need to start deciding who dies, maybe it should be a factor.

We’re continually told about this scenario when the healthcare system could become overwhelmed like in Italy and they start deciding who lives and who dies. If they let a daycare worker die to save someone on death row people would be up in arms.

 

[OoohShiny]

I never said they shouldn’t get care period. My feeling is that if resources become limited and doctors need to start deciding who dies, maybe it should be a factor.

We’re continually told about this scenario when the healthcare system could become overwhelmed like in Italy and they start deciding who lives and who dies. If they let a daycare worker die to save someone on death row people would be up in arms.

And the same for drivers of vehicles with tailpipe emissions?

 

[Cerulean]

I never said they shouldn’t get care period. My feeling is that if resources become limited and doctors need to start deciding who dies, maybe it should be a factor.

We’re continually told about this scenario when the healthcare system could become overwhelmed like in Italy and they start deciding who lives and who dies. If they let a daycare worker die to save someone on death row people would be up in arms.

Withholding care, or delaying is what I am referring to. I think what you are describing is exactly the slippery slope I am mentioning.

Who got respirators and who didn’t in Italy was determined by medical condition or severity of illness. Decisions about priority had nothing to do with whether they were a “good or bad person”. That is not how any healthcare delivery should operate, even in a crisis.

I also think a repeat of that example is extremely unlikely, certainly now. Even at full capacity, the virus is not the total mystery that it once was and healthcare systems know how to triage patients much more effectively.

 

[OoohShiny]

Also to address your other post, when public health was originally evaluating who should be exempt from mask wearing, it was only people with a mental age of less than 5 years old and those requiring external oxygen. Both of those things are extremely obvious. Then all of the anti maskers came up with reasons so they could get away without wearing masks. For example why can’t the rape survivor in the article you quoted wear a plastic face shield if a mask invokes a fear response? Bet she could, but she’s choosing not to.

If someone was out in a face shield rather than a mask people would think medical condition rather than narcissistic and ignorant.

Saying that last one as someone with asthma who runs with a mask. My running group did an awareness campaign where we all ran a 10k in the hottest part of the summer wearing masks and pulse oximeters. Around 20 of us participated, all at different skill levels, and the lowest reading was 97% oxygen saturation. My sister was pregnant and even she managed it.

Wearing a mask isn’t a big deal.

Someone who was has a legitimate (not strictly opinion-based or political) reason for not wearing a mask can STILL convey Covid.

This particular story sounds like the sort of anecdote that willful anti-maskers will point to with glee... Conveniently forgetting the gaping logic hole: Why can’t she wear a clear face mask that rests on the forehead, with a scarf or bandanna hanging from it? I see a number of people with this setup - masks on the face are uncomfortable and this is a perfectly viable alternative that keeps everyone safe.
.

This is, of course, a highly emotive story, but I am surprised that it is being argued a victim of a violent rape should have the aftermath of her experience, her emotional state and her reaction to having her face covered questioned.

Who are we, as unqualified laypeople on a random internet forum, to judge whether or not someone in that situation has a 'valid reason' to not wear a mask or other face covering?

I would even argue the same for Doctors and other qualified health personnel undertaking her ongoing care - her experience is her experience, and for someone to rule that she must wear something on her face 'because I bet she could if she tried' or 'it's only a see-through face shield' seems cruel and dismissive.


Or are we going by the UK Government's standards, whereby face coverings are only allowed not to be worn if the person...:

(a).. cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering—
...
(ii)without severe distress;

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/791/regulation/4/made

Why must the person's distress be 'severe'?

The law as it stands seemingly dictates that it is perfectly acceptable for a person to suffer 'distress' wearing a face covering, and that they must just shut up and put up with it.

Given face coverings are now mandated on all public transport and terminuses, in all shops, in all restaurants when not sitting at a table... pretty much any activity done outside the house and in a covered public space, basically... it would appear that a person must either suffer continuous distress in order to 'live', or must withdraw from public life.

Is that really an acceptable situation?



WRT 'face shields', I am confused as to the science behind what is being argued.

In one breath (pun intended ) it is asserted that masks must be worn because they capture particles and (apparently) aerosols at source.

But in the other breath it seems that a face shield is an acceptable alternative - a shield placed several inches away from the face, that is totally open to circulating air around the sides and the bottom (with or without an added bandana), which therefore stands approximately zero chance of effectively capturing any aerosolised particles and 'keeping everyone safe' if such particles are a common transmission vector.

 

[missy]

A face shield is not an acceptable alternative on its own. In conjunction with a properly fitting face mask it is a good option. By itself, no.
But perhaps in the absence of anything else one might feel it’s better than nothing. :/

 

[Tekate]

The government has formerly tried to limit exhaust pipe emissions.. not sure what has happened in the last 4 years.

The way I read your posts is that you believe in a person's right to not wear a mask and you are listing other causes of health problems, car emissions, smoke stacks, dry cleaner chemicals in groundwater (which happened in my little town and I believe 3 women in my street died of cancer because of it when I was a child).. some states have really tough inspections on car emissions and some don't, like Texas, I used to say to my husband, welp they take our car, go in the back have a cigarette and come back and tell us it passed! in Texas we don't like rules made by the government, there are many many actions and objects that can make us sick and kill us, that' why we have federal government rules or had them.

We should keep our emissions to a minimum on our cars, or better yet, electric vehicles. We should all have safe water to drink, we should all follow the rules when using recreational vehicles, accidents do happen, I know this but they will be a lot less if people follow safe behavior and rules.

Same with masks, a persons right to not wear a mask does not supercede my right to a longer life as I am old, high b/p etc.. if a doc wants to let me die because I have high b/p then that would be murder because my form is a genetic one.. we should all do what is best for our neighbors and friends and family.

What about the drivers of vehicles emitting tailpipe emissions?

 

[OoohShiny]

A face shield is not an acceptable alternative on its own. In conjunction with a properly fitting face mask it is a good option. By itself, no.
But perhaps in the absence of anything else one might feel it’s better than nothing. :/

I have wondered about this point in bold - surely a face shield is (even more ) pointless if you're also wearing a mask? lol

 

[Tekate]

I don't think that would square with the hippocratic oath do you? I can swear I want to be able to have my life ended before I get to sick with cancer but few docs and states would let me.

If people who don't want to wear a mask were willing to sign a form stating they were happy to not be treated for any effects of SARS-CoV-2 or Covid-19 if it meant they were not compelled (legally or through societal pressure) to wear a mask, would that crystallisation of your position in a legal form be satisfactory?

(Can you also provide evidence showing the correlation between the people tweeting conspiracy theories and the people not wearing masks? )

 

[missy]

I have wondered about this point in bold - surely a face shield is (even more ) pointless if you're also wearing a mask? lol

Not at all. I’m on the go so can’t find scientific articles to link but google (if you’re interested) NEJM and face masks and shields. Both together is better than just masks alone. Medical professionals wear both.

 

[Tekate]

Not really, if a person sneezes near you and the virus can enter your eyes my BIL and SIL flew to Vancouver and wore masks and shields as they were on a plane and don't wear glasses, I thought it smart..

I have wondered about this point in bold - surely a face shield is (even more ) pointless if you're also wearing a mask? lol

 

[House Cat]

If people who don't want to wear a mask were willing to sign a form stating they were happy to not be treated for any effects of SARS-CoV-2 or Covid-19 if it meant they were not compelled (legally or through societal pressure) to wear a mask, would that crystallisation of your position in a legal form be satisfactory?

(Can you also provide evidence showing the correlation between the people tweeting conspiracy theories and the people not wearing masks? )

Only if they can ensure that they won’t spread Covid 19 to any other people.