OPINION: Masking the needs of many
Scenes of manically muscling into a densely occupied supermarket, free of extensive outdoor waiting times, to then observe a sea of visible noses and mouths seems like a commonality of an extinct lifetime. Wearing face coverings in public places is a measure that appears to be implemented for the foreseeable, with those classed as exempt excluded from the obligation. But where is the sense in further exposing those with health conditions to the atmosphere containing a potentially fatal disease? Surely obtaining vulnerability should result in the proposition of advanced methods of protection.
A deficiency of defence against coronavirus is what “vulnerable” individuals are experiencing, which heavily contrasts to government teachings at the beginning of the pandemic. We have been constantly reminded that the diagnosis of an ongoing health problem strongly correlates to a person’s proneness to coronavirus due to the existence of a weak immune system. In response to this finding, strict government guidance enforced the act of shielding upon those affected for several months which exemplified the deprivation of outdoor activities and detached social interaction.
When restrictions started to ease in Scotland at the beginning of summer, First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon told those who were shielding “the virus still poses a very significant threat to you. Our recommendation at this stage is to continue to shield until 31st July.”
So whilst hospitality venues reopened and celebrations of slight freedom were commencing, those shielding were banished from the merriments in an act of common goodness since a stark threat of illness remained exceptionally applicable to those with underlying health conditions.
So why now, post shielding times, are individuals who are still deemed as high risk confidently permitted to enter public areas without the fortification of facial coverings?
The obvious defence to this to this is that it is simply unrealistic and inconsiderate to mandate a person who is exempt from face coverings to wear one. Disabilities such as asthma, dementia and autism are included on the government’s list of circumstances as to why this national regulation may not apply to an individual. Applying a face covering, whether it be a mask or a scarf, could inflict episodes of confusion and breathing difficulties upon those who are disabled and could create an atmosphere of anxiousness and fear which should ultimately be avoided.
But that does not limit the increased danger that the virus compels on these individuals. Take asthma, for example. This respiratory condition has the power to source complications with the sufferer’s airways which mirrors a key symptom of COVID-19: shortness of breath. Full revelation of the mouth and nose in public spaces increases the probability of catching coronavirus. Pre-existing breathing problems would likely be further heightened in this case, possibly leading to a difficult recovery.
Returning to full-time shielding seems unnecessary given the improvement of knowledge of the virus and the adaption of restrictions, but maybe a slight element of it should return to maintain safety for the vulnerable.
Rejecting non mask wearers from visiting mask wearing areas seems a cruel and unfair implementation, but perhaps it is the best way to increase the protection of those exempt from wearing facial coverings. This would not be an easy measure to come to terms with as it would result in the avoidance of public transport which would strip many of their independence. Support would not be as easily accessible to some like it would be in comparison to others with regards to stocking up on essentials and moving around freely. But those concerns were absent when the application of shielding was executed to vulnerable individuals earlier in the year. Coping methods used back then could be assessed and revisited if this was a restriction to be imposed.
Of course health must be prioritised as it remains the fundamental issue throughout this turbulent time and sharp attention must be paid to the lucidity of who should and should not be expected to follow face mask rules. But question marks remain present over the lenience towards mask wearing as it highlights the illogicality of the current government guidance regarding protection against the virus.
