Took the dreaded trip to asda today and although most customers were wearing masks about 30% of the staff weren’t. It infuriates me because due to Asperger’s syndrome I find wearing the mask distressing and being severely Underweight means I get breathless easy however I try to wear it is long as possible due to fears Of vigilantes.
I really don’t understand why the government didn’t have some official documents for those exempt. I’m exempt from wearing a seatbelt due to my conditions but that has the proper documentation if challenged. The face mask laws do not.
In which case you are almost certainly exempt from wearing a face covering yourself. Indeed, if you consider that it would cause you extreme distress to do so, you ARE exempt.
The lack of official documentation makes complete sense. Not everyone who is exempt will have a diagnosable condition. Furthermore, if everyone who wished to claim an exemption was forced to visit their GP, Drs’ practices would quickly become overloaded at a time when many serious conditions are going untreated.
Note that generic exemption certificates/badges etc. are available from various sources, but the government’s own guidance states that these are *not* required. It should be sufficient in every case to state that you’re exempt, with no requirement to explain why. You should only ever be asked about this by someone in a position of authority.
I understand why you’re concerned about vigilantes. But I would point out that, as someone who is also exempt, I have had no issues over the last few weeks having done a fair bit of travelling on public transport, and visiting many businesses. That said, I accept this largely depends on the individual.
Staff are exempt (in England anyway). As a fellow occupier of the autism spectrum I sympathise because this makes no logical sense to me, but the law is what it is.
The reasons staff are exempt are clear, if you think about it. They are working for extended periods on shop floors, and have no choice but to be at work.
(At both
@MattA7 and
@island) wouldn’t your ire be better directed at the government for introducing this requirement despite very weak (at best) evidence supporting face coverings?