The jury is out on masks and their effectiveness but the point is most people medically exempt are happy to wearing sunflower lanyards or show other ID. The issue is with the very small minority including a number on here (yes I have read the links) that don't like the law and decide they want to disobey it.
I don't recall anyone on here saying they will disobey the law.
There's a few laws I don't like but I obey them.
Problem is not all supermarket staff are actually adhering to the law here, even the police are acting unlawfully.
At the moment there is a law to wear face coverings in Supermarkets and the Supermarkets want to be more rigorous in their enforcement due to an increased transmission rate of the new variant virus whilst giving reasonable leeway to those able give some sort of ID. That seems sensible.
There is no ID requirement.
My point is that those who are genuinely medically exempt and won't use sunflower lanyards etc are in the very small minority and the rest are just bloody minded (including some on here)
Do you count anxieties, autism etc as "medical" exemptions? Wearing a lanyard does not guarantee avoiding hassle; I've been present when people wearing lanyards have been challenged. Also people should not have to label themselves nor is there any requirement to do so.
As for people being 'disadvantaged' I say more people are advantaged than disadvantaged here.
But how do you define disadvantaged? There are around 3800 active members but most won't be posting about this. I don't think the numbers and proportions are particularly relevant here.
Finally, the vast majority of Scientists and medical professions think that face coverings should be worn so I'm happy to go along with the experts with qualifications and not the 'experts' on here (or social media).
There are many experts who disagree with mask mandates, so it's not quite the choice that you suggest.
If a couple of years down the line we find that masks were useless (I accept the science is dynamic) then fine by me but on the balance of risk at the moment best to go with what the Supermarkets are proposing even if a very small minority are affected.
Those who are affected are disproportionately affected. Also I'd estimate around 10% of the population would be covered by exemptions which is not a proportion that can be ignored.
Uses of terms like 'disgrace' and 'monstrous' are amusing beyond belief.
I don't think so; authoritarianism needs to be called out.
I don't like wear face coverings but don't have a tantrum wearing one at this current time.
This suggests a lack of understanding of the issues people face; I ask again if you have read my posts where I have provided quotes? Have you read the concerns of forum members about their anxieties?
I do agree though that long term use of masks would be wrong and I would not be in favour.
Then I urge you to join us and fight authoritarianism; the authoritarians want this to be a long term thing. If you are not ready to join our fight yet, fair enough, but if you are true to your word, the time will come.
Of course there is the worry that the time taken to decide to remove the requirement in important and some risk averse person in charge (politician/manager) may not wish to rescind the mandate even when the risk of infection is very low. (Think bins on stations)
The risk of infection was very low back in June when it was first brought in.
I wouldn't jest, it seems that sort of thing would appeal to the likes of Ferguson.
Absolutely. He would be flouting it of course, in line with his track record, but he'd be enjoying restricting others.
You should of told them to mind their own business.
Not recommended; they could class that as "abuse" (the police will believe them) and ban them from the store (the police would back them up).
Don't underestimate the fact we are living in an authoritarian regime right now.