- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 56,310
Yes but that’s a moot point. No one can guarantee that. Unless they stay at home away from everyone.
Mask rage???
- Thread starter Begonia
- Start date
Yes but that’s a moot point. No one can guarantee that. Unless they stay at home away from everyone.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,602
Cerulean
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2019
- Messages
- 5,118
I agree. It’s not hard. I get mask-ne, foggy glasses, I can’t wear makeup, they are annoying, blah blah, I’ve spent a small fortune finding ones that fit.
But not a big deal. You do what you gotta.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 12,160
Sometimes I think I wear the mask to save other people from their own ignorance.
Like when I was at the grocery store trying to pick out some meat and this woman comes right along and gets right next to me, elbow to elbow. No reason for that, she could have waited.
Well four days later DH’s COVID test came back positive. So my mask might have saved her from getting sick despite her not caring enough about herself to socially distance.
Like when I was at the grocery store trying to pick out some meat and this woman comes right along and gets right next to me, elbow to elbow. No reason for that, she could have waited.
Well four days later DH’s COVID test came back positive. So my mask might have saved her from getting sick despite her not caring enough about herself to socially distance.
chemgirl
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2009
- Messages
- 2,345
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...:
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.
I’m not saying I bet she could wear a mask if she tried. I read the article and she specifically said she reacted to the physical sensation of something over her mouth. A face shield doesn’t touch her mouth. Her whole objection is contact with her mouth causing panic attacks. So why not a face shield? It would show she actually cares about preventing virus spread.
A lot of people are victims of violence, it doesn’t give them Carte Blanche to completely ignore public health regulations when there are modifications available.
chemgirl
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2009
- Messages
- 2,345
I definitely don’t think they are as effective as masks. At least here they are being worn by people with sensory issues as a “better than nothing” alternative.
I guess I see it as an act of good faith?
For example my nephew attends a daycare for children with special needs. They require masks for children who are capable of following instructions. There’s a whole guide to mask wearing for children with autism. Let them choose the mask, try different fabrics, mask training where they wear the mask in a safe environment for short bursts. Even masks for dolls so that they become normalized. Parents are instructed to keep a picture of their child in a mask with them to hold up whenever it’s appropriate to wear a mask so that their child learns context. They are allowing face shields if the mask transitioning doesn’t work. It’s not a first line of defence, but it’s better than nothing for individuals who absolutely cannot wear masks.
I think I’m just a little sensitive after seeing how hard they work with him. He’s a 6 year old with Downs Syndrome and they tried mask training. In the end it didn’t work out and he wears a shield. Surely a neurotypical adult can at least manage a shield.
Last edited:
Made in London
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2020
- Messages
- 728
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,264
I'm not sure why you're ( @OoohShiny ) even arguing these random obscure potential reasons for not wearing a mask. Are you a rape victim? Deaf? No, you just dont like the government telling you to do something for the good of the people. I dont buy for a single second that you give a shit about any of those people except you think they prop up YOUR "right" to not wear a mask. Its really sad to see you use them as pawns. Some people have actual, legitimate reasons not to wear a mask. "I dont like the govt" isnt one. Grow up.
- Joined
- May 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,722
The government accepts that vehicle emissions are a health concern. That is why diesel and petrol vehicles will be banned (from 2030?). It’s not viable to introduce legislation to immediately ban diesel cars to protect communal health. It is possible, and entirely reasonable in the extraordinary circumstances we’re in, to immediately introduce legislation to require everyone who is capable to wear a mask to protect communal health and resources.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2014
- Messages
- 8,225
If we are to be punished for our oral emissions by removing access to medical care, why should we not also have medical care withdrawn for our vehicle emissions?
If the assertion is that both are harmful, why is the proposed response not the same?
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 12,692
I am so sorry @Bayek . My heart breaks for you. This is very personal for me. Other people not wearing a mask puts all people at risk, which includes me and my family. That you are in an environment where people are saying, because you are old, you don't deserve to live, just... I'm so sorry. Stay strong. Do what you have to do to protect yourself. I'm on your side.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2014
- Messages
- 8,225
Being deaf, being a victim of a traumatic experience, having a hidden condition... all of these (and many more) are valid reasons for not wearing a mask.
Can one not put forward such points unless they have personal experience of them?
(How do you know I don't have personal experience of them?)
Either way, is it wrong to have open discussion about these and similar points?
I find it somewhat offensive to be accused of using the vulnerable as 'pawns' when I am attempting to highlight that, for some, it's not as simple as 'just wear a mask'.
It is concerning that many who support mask use seem to be increasingly intolerant of those who don't wear masks, no matter what the reason for not wearing them, without taking the time to consider the possible reasons.
The implicit subtext seems to be that one is likely to receive abuse unless one 'looks disabled' upon first glance, and one should therefore openly display some form of lanyard or similar to declare their disability and placate in advance those who would take them to task - which is grossly offensive.
It has already been reported that the vulnerable are withdrawing from daily activities because they fear or are experiencing abuse, which is plainly wrong. No person should feel forced to parade their disabilities and illnesses for the whole world to see in an act of 'shaming'.
In the UK we have the Equality Act, which superseded the Disability Discrimination Act. Under the act, it is my understanding that it is illegal to treat the disabled differently (whether they have physical or mental disabilities, and whatever they may be) or to demand that they prove their disability, because their disability should not be a factor in how they are treated, other than it being considered in order to ensure that all disabilities are catered for to the best of the available abilities under the 'duty to make adjustments'.
Challenging strangers for not wearing masks therefore crosses the line, if my understanding is correct, and I believe there are Right to Privacy violations under Human Rights law as well.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2014
- Messages
- 8,225
There was a medical chap in a hospital on the TV the other day with a mask, a face shield and protective glasses - certainly being thorough!
On a related note, I think the above highlights one of the main points the 'anti maskers' (if we must label them) raise. Tests and studies showing mask effectiveness (or not) are invariably always done in controlled environments using clean, new masks that are put on properly, not touched during testing, and disposed of after use; however, out in 'the real world', people are using the disposable masks for hours, re-using the same mask for days, stuffing them into their pocket or bag between uses, and generally constantly fiddling with them while wearing them. I think the studies that I have seen that have been in 'the real world' have involved trained medical staff rather than Jo/e Public.
All of such actions must (surely!) increase risk of fomite transmission, and I have read some comments regarding saturated disposable masks (due to extended use) becoming more likely to create aerosols through evaporation (or whatever the mechanism is).
I don't have them to hand but I have seen some interesting graphs showing differences in places wearing masks versus places not wearing masks - although, of course, masks are but one element of the situation that may influence the outcomes.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,264
Because you've even said it in the past! You don't want to wear a mask because YOU dont think it does any good and YOU dont like the government telling people what to do. You also said youd refuse contact tracing, even if it could save lives, because you dont want YOUR privacy invaded.
The common denominator? You, and what you want. Not to protect the trauma victims. Not to help the deaf. No, to justify you doing what you want to do. It's actually disgusting to see you try and use actual victims or persons with disabilities to try and give a middle finger to your government.
Wear a mask or dont, (and yes, we all know where you stand on that
) but stop trying to pretend like your ire on the general public rebuking anti-maskers has any shred of concern for the deaf, the rape victims, whoever else.
chemgirl
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2009
- Messages
- 2,345
The way I see it, anti maskers are fine with killing people. They know their actions can result in death and they do it anyway. They’re no better than someone who drives drunk with their kids in the car.
Try to justify it all you want, but the bottom line is they would rather risk killing someone than be mildly inconvenienced.
How arrogant.
That’s why they’re judged.
Try to justify it all you want, but the bottom line is they would rather risk killing someone than be mildly inconvenienced.
How arrogant.
That’s why they’re judged.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,722
Because our understanding of the issues with vehicle emissions has developed over time. Because cars are fundamental to the way our society currently operates and their use is pretty much universal - even someone who doesn’t drive will accept Amazon deliveries from a van, or buy food from a supermarket that was transported via road and they are therefore indirectly causing emissions. We all have a shared usage and are trying to reduce the problem as quickly as possible, but with something so ubiquitous in modern society change will take time.
Sticking a mask on your face to help yourself and others really doesn’t have the same issues for the way society functions (in the overwhelming majority of cases).
And re: being punished for our health choices, the issue was only raised in the context of limited resources, in this case the capacity of hospital beds. It wasn’t raised as a punishment per se, should resources be infinite. (Also, this isn’t something new. Donor organs are in short supply: would you prioritise an alcoholic waiting for a second transplant over someone with a genetic liver disease? I believe alcoholics have traditionally been excluded from transplant lists in some countries. We all have to take responsibility for our own health. In this case, for the health of others too.)
Begonia
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2011
- Messages
- 3,651
I agree. PTSD? Sure, I've got that. Loud noises like gunfire make me flinch bc I've been in gunfire. Halloween has me twitching but do I soldier on? Damn. Right. I. Do.
Now not saying some peeps don't have a hard hard time with some things (like wearing a mask) but put on your big person undies and wear the damn mask. No sense in trading in trauma (where you did survive) for a situation where you might not (covid). Or passing it on to me and mine. Nope. If you are unable, then stay the blazes home. Just sayin'.
Daisys and Diamonds
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2019
- Messages
- 25,389
Dont you hate that
ive been in a near empty store with the other person practically in my face - definatly in my personality space
Social distancing people !
How is your hubbie doing ?
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2009
- Messages
- 27,486
I don’t know how we can possibly explain this more clearly, but “a person’s distress must be severe in order to justify eschewing a facemask” because masks directly and definitively save lives, and death is even more severely distressing, not to mention distressingly permanent.
HollyJane
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2020
- Messages
- 223
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 12,692
Yes, people I know have lost their lives, so I am frustrated too. I think if you gave him the choice, he would have chosen to lose his job. I think his daughter and wife would have made the same choice.
HollyJane
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2020
- Messages
- 223
Most people aren't dying from COVID, though. But, most people are suffering in other ways from it.
I'm just giving you another perspective.
I don't have to be screeched at. I wear the mask, but my attitude about it is shtty. And, I can understand those who don't wear it, and it doesn't upset me.
chemgirl
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2009
- Messages
- 2,345
So more than 230,000 Americans dying isn’t enough? What number would be appropriate?
HollyJane
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2020
- Messages
- 223
You and I wear masks. But, I can understand the perspective of those opposed. You cannot. That's all.
- Joined
- May 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,722
But I still don’t understand why wearing a mask is the issue. I can understand the perspective of people opposed to lockdowns: they cause immediate economic and social hardship and have the potential to cause severe long term issues. I see that they are a contentious issue, although I think most governments globally have made the right moral decision and are trying to prioritise lives as far as possible and will deal with the economic consequences later.
But masks? How can anyone have a fundamental objection to putting a piece of material on their face if it will save lives? I think that’s the issue that’s emotive here: people having so little concern for others that they would make a stand over something that involves so little effort or compromise to their lifestyle. It’s just being respectful and considerate to others and what kind of person begrudges that? I can’t see any reason to object (excluding genuine physical or psychological issues). Campaign and lobby the government for different lockdown restrictions if you want, that’s a democratic right, but wear a bloody mask while you do.
chemgirl
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2009
- Messages
- 2,345
Of course I can’t understand how people can justify knowingly spreading a deadly disease
Wearing a mask does not eliminate a single job.
There is no logical downside to mask wearing.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 56,310
There was a medical chap in a hospital on the TV the other day with a mask, a face shield and protective glasses - certainly being thorough!
On a related note, I think the above highlights one of the main points the 'anti maskers' (if we must label them) raise. Tests and studies showing mask effectiveness (or not) are invariably always done in controlled environments using clean, new masks that are put on properly, not touched during testing, and disposed of after use; however, out in 'the real world', people are using the disposable masks for hours, re-using the same mask for days, stuffing them into their pocket or bag between uses, and generally constantly fiddling with them while wearing them. I think the studies that I have seen that have been in 'the real world' have involved trained medical staff rather than Jo/e Public.
All of such actions must (surely!) increase risk of fomite transmission, and I have read some comments regarding saturated disposable masks (due to extended use) becoming more likely to create aerosols through evaporation (or whatever the mechanism is).
I don't have them to hand but I have seen some interesting graphs showing differences in places wearing masks versus places not wearing masks - although, of course, masks are but one element of the situation that may influence the outcomes.
The data we have to this point shows mask wearing to be an effective method to help decrease and control Covid 19. We are still at the beginning of this and in years to come more info will be available but this is what we know now.
Mask or no mask for COVID-19: A public health and market study - PMC
Efficient strategies to contain the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are peremptory to relieve the negatively impacted public health and global economy, with the full scope yet to unfold. In the absence of highly effective drugs, ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
" snip..
The COVID-19 pandemic has created a global crisis. Prevention such as vaccines is one of the most effective measures to mitigate such a catastrophic public health crisis. Prior to an available vaccine, NPIs such as wearing a mask can potentially reduce the virus transmission rate. Recent modeling studies suggest that timely and comprehensive NPIs are needed to prevent a secondary wave of COVID-19"
Trends in COVID-19 Incidence After Implementation ...
This report describes trends in the number of COVID-19 cases in Arizona after sustained implementation and enforcement of statewide and locally enhanced mitigation measures.
www.cdc.gov
snip...
"Enhanced mitigation measures should be implemented by communities and persons to slow COVID-19 spread, particularly before a vaccine or therapeutic treatment becomes widely available.
Mitigation measures, including mask mandates, that are implemented and enforced statewide appear to have been effective in decreasing the spread of COVID-19 in Arizona.
"
Face masks: what the data say
The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic, and yet the debate trundles on. How much evidence is enough?
www.nature.com
There is more we need to know but again this is what we have so far. And since mask wearing is fairly simple and low cost with potentially large impact why wouldn't we do this til we have an effective vaccine and or treatment?
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 9,411
Wearing a mask or not wearing a mask in the United States became politicized.
When the head of the snake takes no personal responsibility, its not surprising that others (even those who do not follow him typically) will do the same.
This is the problem. Its not oh well we don't wanna, its about what that mask actually stands for.
Its unfortunate.
Then you have the stupidity that abounds on the internet, the rich and famous having their parties...maskless I might add. They make their excuses about fast testing everyone but still, why are you having parties during a pandemic?
Those that have said "blue masks cause cancer" which is a crock
Some people don't use their platorms for good unfortunately.
When the head of the snake takes no personal responsibility, its not surprising that others (even those who do not follow him typically) will do the same.
This is the problem. Its not oh well we don't wanna, its about what that mask actually stands for.
Its unfortunate.
Then you have the stupidity that abounds on the internet, the rich and famous having their parties...maskless I might add. They make their excuses about fast testing everyone but still, why are you having parties during a pandemic?
Those that have said "blue masks cause cancer" which is a crock
Some people don't use their platorms for good unfortunately.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 34,329
You and I wear masks. And, I can understand the perspective of those opposed.
They are stupid narcissistic murderers.
That's all.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,602
This!
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings - 04/14
300x240.png)