Novel Coronavirus

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
I'm not suggesting no distancing for those who cannot weat masks. I'm suggesting we do not discriminate against them.
 
PilgrimsProgress said:
OMG - STILL arguing over the wearing of masks????
Howzabout a bit of commonsense?

In NSW mask wearing by our Premier was "recommended, but not compulsory".
Hardly anyone (except we oldies and Asian Aussies) wore them.
There was community transmission.

The Premier then made mask wearing mandatory and introduced fines.
Now, even with community transmission in NSW nil, folks still wear masks on public transport -as it's still mandatory.
Those that have a genuine reason for not wearing a mask, either get stuff delivered or a friend or family member shops for them.

It seems to me that if you can't wear a mask you sure as Hell won't want to risk being on a respirator.
Click to expand...
Risk of that may be outweighed by not being able to get a medication on time.
 
I don't get how "no shoes, no shirt, no service" is not discriminatory, but "no shoes, no shirt, no mask, no service" is discriminatory.
 
ChemGal said:
If someone doesn't have feet I would hope they are not banned from entering.
Click to expand...
I think most sane people interpret "no shoes" to mean bare feet and absence of feet would remove the requirement.

The problem here is that many of the conditions that would exempt one from masking are invisible (e.g. respiratory ailments not yet at the stage of needing O2), unlike missing feet, so you end up with a grey area where someone could claim an exemption who shouldn't just to get out of wearing a mask.

And the question then becomes, do you err on the side of caution and of protecting other customers and employees, or do you err on the side of protecting rights at the risk of some bad eggs getting through?

For the record, I know someone whose wife works in day surgery at one of the hospitals and someone with a positive test lied to get past screening rather than cancelling their surgery. Fortunately, the wife was in full PPE so the hospital isn't going into a panic over it. If this kind of BS is happening in hospitals, I can guarantee it is happening in stores and store staff and customers are not wearing full PPE, just masks of their own. So exempting people based on their own say-so is a very real concern.

And, to be clear, I am not suggesting an answer here, just laying out the questions and concerns.
 
We allow eating and drinking indoors in public places. My last appointment I waited while someone pulled out a drink halfway on the stairs in the middle. Not on a halfway landing point which are wide. The doctor I saw couldn't keep the mask on his nose for 5 minutes. We all see people not wearing them properly. But someone who can't wear a mask we should be able to deny service to? Not at the least offer the option for a curbside option for items? Seems like an excuse to discriminate.
 
As someone who is potentially vulnerable to being harmed by someone who lies and/or won't wear their mask properly, I get annoyed by that behaviour.

When do we cry discrimination and when do we hold people accountable?
 
ChemGal said:
We allow eating and drinking indoors in public places. My last appointment I waited while someone pulled out a drink halfway on the stairs in the middle. Not on a halfway landing point which are wide. The doctor I saw couldn't keep the mask on his nose for 5 minutes. We all see people not wearing them properly. But someone who can't wear a mask we should be able to deny service to? Not at the least offer the option for a curbside option for items? Seems like an excuse to discriminate.
Click to expand...
Which is why we won't eat out until we are vaccinated (not to mention most of the places we would eat out at, like our all-you-can-eat Japanese, are still not open). No point in taking a risk when we can safely patronize most of our favorite places the way we normally do anyhow, by taking out (as we did the other day).
 
Mendalla said:
I think most sane people interpret "no shoes" to mean bare feet and absence of feet would remove the requirement.

The problem here is that many of the conditions that would exempt one from masking are invisible (e.g. respiratory ailments not yet at the stage of needing O2), unlike missing feet, so you end up with a grey area where someone could claim an exemption who shouldn't just to get out of wearing a mask.

And the question then becomes, do you err on the side of caution and of protecting other customers and employees, or do you err on the side of protecting rights at the risk of some bad eggs getting through?

For the record, I know someone whose wife works in day surgery at one of the hospitals and someone with a positive test lied to get past screening rather than cancelling their surgery. Fortunately, the wife was in full PPE so the hospital isn't going into a panic over it. If this kind of BS is happening in hospitals, I can guarantee it is happening in stores and store staff and customers are not wearing full PPE, just masks of their own. So exempting people based on their own say-so is a very real concern.

And, to be clear, I am not suggesting an answer here, just laying out the questions and concerns.
Click to expand...
And it's why I think there should be steep fines for those who fake it. Hard to enforce for sure but at least a deterrent and if this was a long term thing I would support the cards requiring some sort of documentation to acquire., unfortunately adding pressure to the medical system with a pandemic isn't the time to implement that.
 
People always lied to get past hospital rules. It’s part of the me first society

i remember having a premie In the unit. Only parents and grandparents visiting rule. Oh but please please please, my brother is only here for a day and then he moves to Calgary. Please can he come in. Please........

so the nurse relented. I mean how bad could it be to allow one extra person in. Unfortunately he developed chicken pox the next day. well he had a fever but we didn’t think it would be a problem. So sorry. Says family. All babies had to be given an unnecessary medication due to that one person who didn’t think their fever was a big deal

for now I think all hospitals are treating all patients as possible infections. I know my nephew has had to isolate three times in the hospital until his test is negative due to patients. However, because it is difficult at times to get a Covid test people just don’t know. My brother had knee surgery last month and had to have a negative Covid test
 
Mendalla said:
Which is why we won't eat out until we are vaccinated (not to mention most of the places we would eat out at, like our all-you-can-eat Japanese, are still not open). No point in taking a risk when we can safely patronize most of our favorite places the way we normally do anyhow, by taking out (as we did the other day).
Click to expand...
I'm with you on that. Chemguy has had lunch with his boss though more like 10m apart than just 2.
Others at work have done things in a more risky way - there have been groups from out of town all eating in a conference room. Not a huge fan of that and Chemguy doesn't join in but I also understand allowing that.
 
BC restaurants have been open with restrictions for dine in since the end of May, early June. There have been no cases linked to restaurants from what I understand. I have eaten out a few times during that time and have felt safe. Of course, we've been selective of where we go and only go to places we know are following guidelines well and are clean, etc.
 
ChemGal said:
there have been groups from out of town all eating in a conference room. Not a huge fan of that and Chemguy doesn't join in but I also understand allowing that.
Click to expand...

How large are these groups? One rule BC has is that we can have no more than six at a table and we're only supposed to dine in with our household group.
 
ChemGal said:
I'm with you on that. Chemguy has had lunch with his boss though more like 10m apart than just 2.
Others at work have done things in a more risky way - there have been groups from out of town all eating in a conference room. Not a huge fan of that and Chemguy doesn't join in but I also understand allowing that.
Click to expand...
The rare times I go in these days, I eat at my desk. Only go to the lunch room to use the microwave. Even have my own kettle now to minimize trips to that public space. And the lunch room is restricted to 5 people and the tables have been spaced out for distancing (they used to be pushed together to form one long table), which I believe is per H&S guidelines put out by the province. Our biggest conference room, which has in the past held meetings with up to 30 or so people, is currently limited to (IIRC) 6. And masking is required if outsiders are involved.
 
Northwind said:
How large are these groups? One rule BC has is that we can have no more than six at a table and we're only supposed to dine in with our household group.
Click to expand...
There is no rule about numbers when it comes to workplace. I'm not sure how BC would be able to make dining with household only work at a workplace. They aren't large groups but bigger than 6. Conference room used so they could space out. Some tables are large.
 
Mendalla said:
The rare times I go in these days, I eat at my desk. Only go to the lunch room to use the microwave. Even have my own kettle now to minimize trips to that public space. And the lunch room is restricted to 5 people and the tables have been spaced out for distancing (they used to be pushed together to form one long table), which I believe is per H&S guidelines put out by the province. Our biggest conference room, which has in the past held meetings with up to 30 or so people, is currently limited to (IIRC) 6.
Click to expand...
People don't actually eat in the lunchroom now at work due to the layout. It's used for food prep.
Chemguy eats mostly in his office but like I said occasionally with his boss I think sometimes one other person.
With an out of town group he did suggest pizza wasn't the best serving option.
 
The dining in with household is for restaurants. It's based on trust really. Workplaces are an issue. Many clusters have happened when work-mates eat together and let their guard down. I don't know if there's anything formal. They have been reminding people to be mindful and keep their groups small
 
Northwind said:
The dining in with household is for restaurants. It's based on trust really. Workplaces are an issue. Many clusters have happened when work-mates eat together and let their guard down. I don't know if there's anything formal. They have been reminding people to be mindful and keep their groups small
Click to expand...
Unless the groups would eat in their vehicles I'm not sure what else the options are. Some of this happened when dine in at restaurants wasn't an option. I think other workplaces would be worse. Even at the hospital when it was quite empty during the summer the cafeteria had a goid number of people.
Kids need to eat at school, people in meat packing plants need to eat, people working in warehouses have to eat, etc.
 
Staggering break times, zoom meetings, eating at your desk, etc. I've seen people eating their lunch outside the hospital here. They also have a courtyard area that is sheltered and often sunny that people enjoy. There are options
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top