@zahlanzi said
Yes, i am really flippant. Choosing some people to stay at home rather than endangering a whole lot of other people.

Hmmm, a very small minority staying at home or the rest of the people being put at risk of catching a deadly disease? It's the moral dilemma of the century. Like the trolley problem only that if you pull the lever some people watch Netflix at home and have ...[text shortened]... you don't some people die.

The great philosophers will be struggling with this one for decades.

I think your argument is self-defeating. If the number of people who can't wear masks and should 'stay at home' is so small (Shav says 1 in a million) how could they pose a significant risk to the mask-wearing masses? In the UK that would mean 70 people walking around without masks. (Statistically, none would be infected).

@shavixmir said
Are you seriously suggesting there are more than 60 people in Britain with traumas which make it psychologically impossible to wear a mask?
That is such a niche trauma, you’re gonna have to back it up with figures.

Your follow up argument: these people are already socially isolated and shouldn’t be punished for their psychological damage.

Yes. Quite right.
There is ...[text shortened]... rs in the street, do you not feel thet the person should be restrained from walking down the street?

There are many exemptions to not wearing a mask. PTSD is just one of them.

@no1marauder said
You also have a professional duty to the public. IF one of your clients because of their mental health issues posed a clear danger of harm to other individuals, surely you would have a moral obligation to prevent them from doing so. And IF that entailed physically restraining them, there is ample legal justification and past precedent to do so.

I'm having a difficult ...[text shortened]... this sort will surely means additional sickness and death. I have not heard any reasonable one yet.

In the UK, a person who is unable to wear a mask due to valid physical or mental health reasons is legally exempt from doing so. For you to try and draw parallels with a person who is perhaps mentally unwell and posing a danger to the public is weak to say the least.

It is not reasonable to ask vulnerable people to remain home indefinitely, in the hope one day a workable vaccine will be developed.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
In the UK, a person who is unable to wear a mask due to valid physical or mental health reasons is legally exempt from doing so. For you to try and draw parallels with a person who is perhaps mentally unwell and posing a danger to the public is weak to say the least.

It is not reasonable to ask vulnerable people to remain home indefinitely, in the hope one day a workable vaccine will be developed.

Why exactly is it "weak" to suggest that not wearing a mask during a deadly pandemic poses a risk to others?

Your argument is emotional, not logical.

@kevcvs57 said
I’m having trouble imagining why your concerning yourself with persecuting a small minority of vulnerable people when you cannot get perfectly healthy people to wear a mask.
The flu is a deadly disease if you have underlying issues so maybe we should lock these people in their homes and throw away the key.
Masks are part of a common sense approach to combatting covi ...[text shortened]... abhorrent that physically and emotionally vulnerable people should be collateral damage in the war.

"Persecuting"?

There really is a lot of emotionalism and little logic to the position you and others are taking.

The simple fact is that allowing exemptions means that there will be more sickness and more death and nothing you have said changes that equation.

@no1marauder said
Why exactly is it "weak" to suggest that not wearing a mask during a deadly pandemic poses a risk to others?

Your argument is emotional, not logical.

Not at all. It is born out of working with such vulnerable individuals and understanding the impact such prolonged isolation would have on their mental wellbeing.

As already advised, your focus should really be on people not wearing masks without a valid and legally accepted reason.

@no1marauder said
"Persecuting"?

There really is a lot of emotionalism and little logic to the position you and others are taking.

The simple fact is that allowing exemptions means that there will be more sickness and more death and nothing you have said changes that equation.

I thinking you are confusing empathy with emotionalism.


'Not' allowing exemptions would also lead to 'more sickness and more death.'

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Not at all. It is born out of working with such vulnerable individuals and understanding the impact such prolonged isolation would have on their mental wellbeing.

As already advised, your focus should really be on people not wearing masks without a valid and legally accepted reason.

No, it is not. That they pose a risk is a simple, irrefutable fact. As is that your position will mean that others WILL get sick and others WILL die as a price for these individuals' "mental wellbeing"; which is not normally an acceptable tradeoff.

The "legally accepted reasons" created are foolish during a deadly pandemic.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I thinking you are confusing empathy with emotionalism.


'Not' allowing exemptions would also lead to 'more sickness and more death.'

Your empathy is extremely narrow and obviously doesn't include the people who will get sick and die as a result of your position.

@no1marauder said
No, it is not. That they pose a risk is a simple, irrefutable fact. As is that your position will mean that others WILL get sick and others WILL die as a price for these individuals' "mental wellbeing"; which is not normally an acceptable tradeoff.

The "legally accepted reasons" created are foolish during a deadly pandemic.

Your position of forcing vulnerable people to live in perpetual isolation and social exclusion would lead to more sickness and death.

@no1marauder said
Your empathy is extremely narrow and obviously doesn't include the people who will get sick and die as a result of your position.

My empathy extends to wearing a mask myself and encouraging people (who are able) to do likewise.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Not at all. It is born out of working with such vulnerable individuals and understanding the impact such prolonged isolation would have on their mental wellbeing.

Are you medically qualified?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Your position of forcing vulnerable people to live in perpetual isolation and social exclusion would lead to more sickness and death.

An absurd argument in the face of an epidemic that is well on its way to killing more than a million people worldwide in one year.

@no1marauder said
"Persecuting"?

There really is a lot of emotionalism and little logic to the position you and others are taking.

The simple fact is that allowing exemptions means that there will be more sickness and more death and nothing you have said changes that equation.

Nothing you have said proves that equation. You cannot in any way prove that the potential harm including possible up tick in suicide rates amongst the vulnerable is in any way justified by evidence of the potential harm wrought by a small minority of people being exempt from mask wearing especially if social distancing guidelines are followed. It’s not me who’s emotionally invested in a position regarding this question.

@kevcvs57 said
Nothing you have said proves that equation. You cannot in any way prove that the potential harm including possible up tick in suicide rates amongst the vulnerable is in any way justified by evidence of the potential harm wrought by a small minority of people being exempt from mask wearing especially if social distancing guidelines are followed. It’s not me who’s emotionally invested in a position regarding this question.

The WHO and CDC have already made such non-arguments foolish.

A "small minority" can quickly spread an infectious disease to many others. Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the cost of your position in sickness and lives shows its utter irrationality.

Funny, in April and May it was the whodeys, Eladars, Joe Schmos and the rest of the right making specious arguments that necessary mandatory public health measures like temporary lockdowns had to be lifted because otherwise there'd be a massive wave of suicides. We've seen the result of such arguments being taken seriously.