21 Aug 20
@zahlanzi saidYou simply aren't listening. It isn't about 'sacrificing some comfort.' It is about quality of life and your flippancy in taking that away from vulnerable people who are unable to wear masks for valid reasons.
"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 ...[text shortened]... danger your "victim" can actually infect someone with Covid and that's just anti-science stupidity.
If you personally were unable to wear a mask (say had breathing problems and would pass out 2 minutes after putting a mask on) would you be happy to be indefinitely confined to your home until a vaccine was developed? (if ever). Would you consider that a mild discomfort?
And your position 'is' effectively punishing people who physically can't wear masks.
21 Aug 20
@ghost-of-a-duke said"It isn't about 'sacrificing some comfort.'"
You simply aren't listening. It isn't about 'sacrificing some comfort.' It is about quality of life and your flippancy in taking that away from vulnerable people who are unable to wear masks for valid reasons.
If you personally were unable to wear a mask (say had breathing problems and would pass out 2 minutes after putting a mask on) would you be happy to be indef ...[text shortened]... discomfort?
And your position 'is' effectively punishing people who physically can't wear masks.
yes it is. They can stay at home. That's their sacrifice. I wear a mask. That's mine. It's not equal. Life ain't fair.
" It is about quality of life"
Yes it is . About taking away the quality of life from the people they would infect.
"and your flippancy in taking that away from vulnerable people who are unable to wear masks for valid reasons."
To protect other vulnerable people from a deadly disease.
"If you personally were unable to wear a mask (say had breathing problems and would pass out 2 minutes after putting a mask on) would you be happy to be indefinitely confined to your home until a vaccine was developed? "
YES. Because i am not a selfish ashole. I am not gonna endanger others just to feel good myself. I would advocate for government assistance if i can't work from home, i would ask friends and relatives to shop for me.
I am not going to endanger other people.
"Would you consider that a mild discomfort?"
YES. Because it's all relative. The guy with COVID gasping for air is slightly more uncomfortable than me sitting on the couch and watching netflix. I would take that discomfort in order to spare others an even greater discomfort.
Because i am not a selfish ashole.
"And your position 'is' effectively punishing people who physically can't wear masks."
Think of it however you like, i have long given up on you understanding.
If you can't grasp the simple fukin concept that safety rules are put in place for a reason, to protect people and not to punish them, then sure. I want to punish asthma sufferers. I have long had a burning hatred for them and i am overjoyed that there is a deadly pandemic so i can force them to stay at home.
21 Aug 20
The post that was quoted here has been removed"One of my points is simply that I am not as paranoid as Zahlanzi, No1Marauder, or others."
One of my points is that you are too ignorant to properly judge just how important wearing a mask is and you should listen to experts on the matter.
"In my work, I routinely accept risks that might make them **** on themselves out of fear."
And others base jump, run with the bulls, and do all kinds of dumb crap. Some survive. Others end up in hospitals or worse.
What you do with your life is your business. Whether you take risks or not is your right. What is NOT your right is to take risks with MY life.
"I would add that I have a medical history of asthma and chronic bronchitis."
I am sorry to hear that. Wear the damn mask nonetheless. Whatever discomfort you feel wearing a mask is insignificant to the kind of discomfort someone on a respirator suffers.
"A possibility (though I don't know if it's true) is that I was infected with a
relatively mild case months ago, recovered, and now have some immunity."
There is no proof someone who got COVID has any kind of immunity. Stop being a selfish ashole and wear the damn mask.
"During the Black Death in Europe, some people blamed and killed Jews."
Wow, this is disgusting, even for you. You compare yourself, who intentionally advocates for breaking a safety rule agreed upon by everyone with the persecution jews suffered because of ignorance and lack of science? You consider the world health organization on the same level as the medieval europe?
The post that was quoted here has been removedmmmyeah, i am done.
This was the last straw. You are actually comparing yourself with victims of genocide because society asks that you wear a cloth mask over your pie hole to not kill people.
Kindly go to an unholy place of your choice and do some act with yourself.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidMore emotionalism; are people who have been exposed to the virus being "punished" when they are required to quarantine?
You simply aren't listening. It isn't about 'sacrificing some comfort.' It is about quality of life and your flippancy in taking that away from vulnerable people who are unable to wear masks for valid reasons.
If you personally were unable to wear a mask (say had breathing problems and would pass out 2 minutes after putting a mask on) would you be happy to be indef ...[text shortened]... discomfort?
And your position 'is' effectively punishing people who physically can't wear masks.
IF you could just admit that your policy preference of allowing mask exemptions AND allowing those exempt to circulate in public spaces WILL cause additional cases of sickness and thus deaths from COVID, then perhaps we could get to the point where you express a valid justification for that added suffering. Maybe, just maybe you could also explain why your preferred policy should reverse the general consensus that society should protect its members from harm that might be caused by those with physical and mental health issues if possible.
Everybody's "quality of life" is lessened during an epidemic of a highly infectious disease by measures meant to contain it. It is also true that some measures will weigh more heavily on certain individuals then others. That is hardly a reason to adopt policies certain to spread the disease to some unknown degree as you are advocating.
22 Aug 20
@no1marauder saidWould you reciprocate in admitting that isolating vulnerable people at home for an indefinite period would lead to additional sickness and death?
IF you could just admit that your policy preference of allowing mask exemptions AND allowing those exempt to circulate in public spaces WILL cause additional cases of sickness and thus deaths from COVID, then perhaps we could get to the point where you express a valid justification for that added suffering. Maybe, just maybe you could also explain why your preferred pol ...[text shortened]... reason to adopt policies certain to spread the disease to some unknown degree as you are advocating.
And the general consensus (in the UK at least and reflected in law) is that there are exemptions to the requirement of wearing a mask.
As these genuine exemptions are minimal (Shav says 1 in a million) I would go as far as to say that more suffering would result from your position than mine.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidBy what means? Are you implying that someone not being allowed to circulate in public spaces without a mask increases their risk of sickness and death? How exactly? How does such "risk" compare to the reality that a contrary rule flies in the face of recommended public health measures meant to contain an infectious disease which will kill one million people worldwide in this year alone?
Would you reciprocate in admitting that isolating vulnerable people at home for an indefinite period would lead to additional sickness and death?
And the general consensus (in the UK at least and reflected in law) is that there are exemptions to the requirement of wearing a mask.
As these genuine exemptions are minimal (Shav says 1 in a million) I would go as far as to say that more suffering would result from your position than mine.
Simply repeating what the law is is not a justification for it. I have no idea how many would be exempt under the UK guidelines but they are sufficiently vague enough to encompass far more than "one in a million":
"people who cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering because of a physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability"
"where putting on, wearing or removing a face covering will cause you severe distress"
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own#:~:text=children%
Given this is a highly contagious disease, even one person spreading it can infect many others and continue a chain that could cause hundreds or more sicknesses. Simply saying people who cannot wear a mask should avoid public spaces during the duration of the pandemic seems prudent under the circumstances and whatever the motivations behind the exemption rule it seems misguided given the gravity of the possible harm as compared to the inconvenience of some individuals (who are not being required to wear masks but merely to avoid public spaces if they cannot for whatever reason).
22 Aug 20
@no1marauder saidYes, absolutely.
By what means? Are you implying that someone not being allowed to circulate in public spaces without a mask increases their risk of sickness and death?
A vulnerable person, already isolated, forced to remain at home, because they are unable to wear a mask for physical or mental health reasons, for a prolonged period would be at high risk of their condition being exacerbated leading to self-neglect, poor health, and in the worst cases self-harm/suicide.
Or do you think these people will get by on Netflix?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidCould you quantify such a risk as compared to the reality that people without masks in public areas are certain to spread a deadly epidemic?
Yes, absolutely.
A vulnerable person, already isolated, forced to remain at home, because they are unable to wear a mask for physical or mental health reasons, for a prolonged period would be at high risk of their condition being exacerbated leading to self-neglect, poor health, and in the worst cases self-harm/suicide.
Or do you think these people will get by on Netflix?
Thanks in advance.
I'm all for measures that would make things easier for persons who cannot wear a mask i.e. food deliveries, alternate means of transportation, etc. etc. being provided at public expense. But your speculative musings do not justify the spreading of COVID-19 given the scale of the damage it has already done and is likely to do in the future.
EDIT: And you are, of course, grossly exaggerating the amount of "isolation" being proposed; it is merely a refraining of visiting public spaces where social distancing cannot be safely maintained, not locking someone in a closet.
22 Aug 20
@no1marauder saidSure. We are talking about a small minority of people who are exempt from wearing a mask. Shav has suggested one in a million. (Ridiculous of course, but let's run with that).
Could you quantify such a risk as compared to the reality that people without masks in public areas are certain to spread a deadly epidemic?
Thanks in advance.
UK population (rounded up) 70 million. - So that's 70 people in the whole of the UK walking around without a mask (though still able to social distance, wash hands etc). Now bearing in mind the current infection rate, it is highly unlikely any of those 70 will be carrying the virus. - By preventing these 70 individuals from going into society however it is much more likely damage will be done to their wellbeing.
22 Aug 20
@zahlanzi saidI’m not sure you are giving sufficient credence to the impact mask wearing has on some people.
"It isn't about 'sacrificing some comfort.'"
yes it is. They can stay at home. That's their sacrifice. I wear a mask. That's mine. It's not equal. Life ain't fair.
" It is about quality of life"
Yes it is . About taking away the quality of life from the people they would infect.
"and your flippancy in taking that away from vulnerable people who are unable to wear m ...[text shortened]... red for them and i am overjoyed that there is a deadly pandemic so i can force them to stay at home.