Not wearing a face mask

[roopat]

I keep reading about lanyards or badges with sunflowers on them being worn by those with a valid reason not to wear a mask - although I've yet to see one.


I'm just cautiously returning to normal shopping & definitely wearing a mask at all times - in a pretty empty Poundland last week I was aware a young man had walked past me down an aisle but I was intent on looking at the shelves. Then I heard him call out laughing 'You should be social distancing'. I turned round as his partner (masked) & child walked past me. She was muttering something about 'this virus' which I didn't really catch (no hearing aids in - a blessing sometimes) & caught him up. Then I noticed he wasn't wearing a mask (no sunflower lanyard). By the smug grin on his face as he walked off I concluded the only reason for what he said was to intimidate the 'old girl' (me) & show his contempt for those who follow the rules 


After 40 years teaching in high school I'm not easily intimidated 

[roopat]

I despair about the state of paranoia in the UK regarding Covid. It is clear that the death rate is very low and decreasing and that a high proportion of new infections are lacking in any significant symptoms.
.............
As for face masks frankly they are prolonging the misery while almost certainly conferring no benefit.

Sorry I dispute your two claims 'lacking in any significant symptoms' & 'almost certainly conferring no benefit'


Currently the medical authorities are puzzling over what they are calling 'long Covid' where young people in their 20s & 30s had mild symptoms maybe 3 months ago & yet are suffering a wide range of lingering effects more serious than originally displayed.


As for little benefit derived from face masks - why do doctors and vets performing surgery wear masks? To protect themselves or the patient? Whichever the reason, masks have been considered protective for a very long time.


I read today an account by a doctor who was shocked at the start of the outbreak to be told not to intubate 60 year olds with one co-morbidity, in his words 'that could be a healthy 60 year old with well-controlled type 2 diabetes'


I'm not taking the chance of being that person.

[CaroleW]

Fancy coming across eight of them, all young and all with respiratory disablement, in one store at the same time.

Which is exactly the point I was making in my opening post.  It's a small branch of Aldi so to find 8 was exceptional.  They were all young and I doubt anybody would have wanted to confront them as 5 were males and 3 of those 5 were a group.  That is what they rely on and get away with it as a result

If proof of exemption had to be provided - they could legitimately be asked to leave or be refused access.

No your post is discriminating directly against “the genuine” as you call them, as you would require them to undergo medical tests for them to mean anything. Of course those tests would be done out of your sight and therefore out of your conscious, therefore you would not feel guilty about having those tests done.

Total rubbish - the genuine will already be registered with a GP so their condition is on record.    How would an asthmatic get an inhaler etc etc so why would they have to undergo medical tests?

cannot believe you cannot see the difference between scanning everyone passing through an airport or scanning a random sample of people at an airport and demanding that every exempt person has to prove that have a condition that exempts them from wearing a face covering.
One is random and untargeted  the other selective and discrimanatory.

There is nothing random about scanning at airports.  Every traveller passes through a scanner

Opting Out of the Airport Scanners

In the United States, the law is that you can opt out of the scan and be subject to the touching search instead. In contrast, the UK Department for Transport has decided that any passenger refusing to pass through the body scanner will not fly.

[sonofthom]

When I am shopping I am not standing over open wounds - I cannot see any logic in your analogy.

Presumably the logic of your position is that you would advocate the wearing of face masks for ever more in the UK to protect us against the many ailments which we can all catch and which can, particularly in conjunction with other issues, can prove fatal for some.

We all need to take a far more balanced and informed view of risk than is being exhibited by those who are living in fear of the now much attenuated Covid.

[CaroleW]

When I am shopping I am not standing over open wounds - I cannot see any logic in your analogy.

Presumably the logic of your position is that you would advocate the wearing of face masks for ever more in the UK to protect us against the many ailments which we can all catch and which can, particularly in conjunction with other issues, can prove fatal for some.

No - I just want people to abide by the ruling introduced by the Government from and including 24th July.  I don't like wearing one - particularly in this hot weather and it steams my specs up - but I do not intend to break the rules. 

For what period we have to continue wearing them is not up to us.  Just as the Government made the current decision - they will decide when we can stop. 

At that point - it will be for individuals to make a personal decision whether to continue to wear one

I have asked the moderator to lock this post

[jillruss]

Those people contributing to this thread might just take a breath and read through what has been 'said', as I have just done.

Then think about your civil liberties and how those liberties can become, first, blurred at the edges, and finally eroded altogether. Woe betide anyone who doesn't conform, obey 'the rules', dares to think for themselves and reaches their own conclusions.

You will automatically come back with 'its for everyone's good' but are you really convinced of that or are you just accepting what you've been told? I absolutely loathe face masks - both wearing one and seeing others wearing them, as if they're convinced they will drop down dead without one. Strangely, we went months being told they weren' t effective but then - about turn - all of a sudden they're compulsory and absolutely key to not passing on or catching this virus which, incidentally, now accounts for far fewer deaths than other conditions.

If you consider yourself vulnerable to the virus, you are perfectly capable (as your posts confirm) of taking your own steps to avoid it without being commanded what to do and what not to do. Most people are quite capable of doing this - those that aren't are those who probably wouldn't give a tinker's for anyone else anyway.

Please, think what you are losing and where these directives come from - a bunch of mediocrities who think its more important to open pubs and restaurants than it is to open schools. Mediocrities who decided months ago that exams couldn't go ahead (even though they always take place in circumstances which must be the epitome of social distancing, for more obvious reasons). They then had all that time to decide what was going to happen - and, guess what, they got it wrong. Again!

Rant over, but please guard your civil liberties with your lives. It can happen here!

[arthurk]

Total rubbish - the genuine will already be registered with a GP so their condition is on record.    How would an asthmatic get an inhaler etc etc so why would they have to undergo medical tests?

Yes, almost everyone will be registered with a GP, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the condition which prevents someone wearing a mask is on their medical records. Moreover, GPs are specifically being told that it isn't up to them to provide exemption certificates, and that it's a self-certification system.

Clearly there are those of a rebellious nature who refuse to wear a face covering, but there also seem to be a significant number of people who think that once you're wearing one you don't need to bother about keeping your distance, which to my mind is equally anti-social.