" assault Rape survivors say they are being stigmatised for not wearing masks"

@shavixmir said
So, 12 pages of discussion and you’ve not yet completed the opinion stage of debate (in Dutch its “oordeelvormend”... no idea what that is in English).

You all have managed to name call and repeat the same points page after page.

There’s a saying: a donkey doesn’t bang its head twice on the same stone (obviously a Dutch saying).

What you all need is a chairman.

I said i am giving up and i couldn't help but be drawn back in. Curious to see if perhaps they use a different point but no.

Same one repeated ad nauseam. "A few people not wearing masks won't make a difference and i say so with 0 years of working in the field to back me up"

@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 think actually that people who object to exemptions from wearing a mask are themselves making an emotional response. None of us like wearing masks and I think it is this personal discomfort that leads us to say, 'If I have to wear one, everyone should.'

We need to take a step back from this and recognize that for some people it is not about discomfort, it is about mask-wearing causing great distress or being an impossibility due to breathing problems, etc. The idea that these individuals should remain at home indefinitely to protect your health while having no concern about their ongoing health is a nonsense.

@shavixmir said
So, 12 pages of discussion and you’ve not yet completed the opinion stage of debate (in Dutch its “oordeelvormend”... no idea what that is in English).

You all have managed to name call and repeat the same points page after page.

There’s a saying: a donkey doesn’t bang its head twice on the same stone (obviously a Dutch saying).

What you all need is a chairman.

Your right it’s an impasse and impossible to conclude.
A) like me and ghost your willing to take the risk associated with a small minority of people being exempt from wearing masks in public.

Or

B) like Zalhanzi and No1 your prepared to isolate people in their homes because they cannot wear a mask in public.

It’s a Hobson’s choice and I don’t think any amount of debate will convince anyone too change their preferred option.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I think actually that people who object to exemptions from wearing a mask are themselves making an emotional response. None of us like wearing masks and I think it is this personal discomfort that leads us to say, 'If I have to wear one, everyone should.'

We need to take a step back from this and recognize that for some people it is not about discomfort, it is abou ...[text shortened]... ndefinitely to protect your health while having no concern about their ongoing health is a nonsense.

Yes, what utter "nonsense" to try to protect the public from a pandemic that will kill over a million people this year.

Your position borders on criminal negligence since you surely know it will lead to more sickness and death, but simply don't seem to care. It is unfortunate that we all have some necessary restraints on our personal liberty during a deadly epidemic, but the idea that some should be simply exempt for them makes no sense.

@no1marauder said
Yes, what utter "nonsense" to try to protect the public from a pandemic that will kill over a million people this year.

Your position borders on criminal negligence since you surely know it will lead to more sickness and death, but simply don't seem to care. It is unfortunate that we all have some necessary restraints on our personal liberty during a deadly epidemic, but the idea that some should be simply exempt for them makes no sense.

The majority of people (including myself) wear masks, social distance, wash hands regularly, in order to protect the public from the virus. But I do that in the knowledge that some people for health reasons can not wear a mask and I do not reasonably expect them to spend an indefinite period in isolation, exasperating their own health and well being.

The UK government (at least) recognises such exemptions, so all that 'criminal negligence' stuff is just hot air, and your position is unreasonable and itself deeply uncaring and naive.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
The majority of people (including myself) wear masks, social distance, wash hands regularly, in order to protect the public from the virus. But I do that in the knowledge that some people for health reasons can not wear a mask and I do not reasonably expect them to spend an indefinite period in isolation, exasperating their own health and well being.

The UK governm ...[text shortened]... ence' stuff is just hot air, and your position is unreasonable and itself deeply uncaring and naive.

"The majority of people (including myself) wear masks"
That doesn't protect you. It protects others if you were to be infected. Your asthma person sneezing in your face because you insist he be allowed to not wear a mask will infect you no matter how much you was your hands.

"I do not reasonably expect them to spend an indefinite period in isolation, exasperating their own health and well being."
I would ask again about the health and well being of the people they could infect. But what's the point.

"The UK government (at least) recognises such exemptions, so all that 'criminal negligence' stuff is just hot air"
Doesn't follow. You act as if the UK government is a model of exemplary government and it can do no wrong.

" and your position is unreasonable and itself deeply uncaring and naive."
And we are saying the same about your position, that you are deeply uncaring and naive towards the way larger group of people that might get infected because of your irresponsible idea that anyone who can convince a doctor to excuse him of wearing a mask should be allowed to do so.

@zahlanzi said
"The majority of people (including myself) wear masks"
That doesn't protect you. It protects others if you were to be infected. Your asthma person sneezing in your face because you insist he be allowed to not wear a mask will infect you no matter how much you was your hands.

"I do not reasonably expect them to spend an indefinite period in isolation, exasperating their o ...[text shortened]... ea that anyone who can convince a doctor to excuse him of wearing a mask should be allowed to do so.

There are 3 groups of people:

1. Those who can wear masks. (The majority)
2. Those who don't like wearing them and look for excuses not to.
3. Those with genuine health problems who find wearing a mask impossible.

I am only advocating exemptions for the third group, while your disdain should be directed at the second.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
There are 3 groups of people:

1. Those who can wear masks. (The majority)
2. Those who don't like wearing them and look for excuses not to.
3. Those with genuine health problems who find wearing a mask impossible.

I am only advocating exemptions for the third group, while your disdain should be directed at the second.

"I am only advocating exemptions for the third group, while your disdain should be directed at the second."
Wtf are you talking about. It's not a matter of disdain, it's a matter of public safety. It's not about punishing someone, it's about keeping everyone safe.


I am getting real tired of your crap. You disregard expert opinion, you disregard public safety just so a very small number of people don't have to sacrifice some comfort and now you appeal to emotion as if we're the monsters who won't those poor souls come out and play. Because me and no1marauder and shav get our kicks through someone else having to wear a mask or having to stay at home.

The only way you could trade someone's comfort for someone else's very life is if you don't believe there is a real danger your "victim" can actually infect someone with Covid and that's just anti-science stupidity.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

How many would you say he can infect until he is tested positive? What if they are asymptomatic? What if they are simply irresponsible?

How many people must be put at risk for a very small minority to suffer no inconvenience?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

"Note that No1Marauder apparently likes to imply that the few people legally
exempt from wearing masks also are exempt from observing 'social distancing'."
How many times must you be told that observing one measure of safety doesn't excuse you from another. One must follow ALL safety rules, not simply the ones that inconveniences them the least.


"(While working, I routinely interact with people not wearing masks.)"
Great. Personal anecdotes. And a dumb one too. You have proudly discovered that one doesn't get Covid simply by walking outside. All it takes is one person infected from those you "routinely interact with " and you can get infected. All your anecdote proves is that you are lucky. Or would you like to tell the world health organization that they are stupid, because "you routinely interact with people without masks and haven't gotten infected yet"?


"Note that No1Marauder apparently likes to imply that there are no other ways
to reduce (not eliminate) risks when interacting with a person not wearing a mask."
This is like saying that since there are more than one way of reducing the risk of car accident, why bother following all those damn rules. Hey, i got behind the wheel without being drunk and i am not legally blind, can i drive at 150km/h? Hey, the risk of me running over someone is never eliminated so you might as well let me go as fast as i can if i promise to wear a seatbelt and not be also drunk.