At the beginning of this year, the rumblings of a respiratory disease outbreak began to emerge out of Wuhan, China. Little did we know that this disease would turn into a worldwide pandemic that would bring the world to its knees and force world leaders to take quick action to protect its residents.
We all watched the news in horror as cases of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths from COVID-19, an infectious disease caused by the Coronavirus, began to climb, seemingly with no end in sight.
The public began to understand the severity of COVID-19 when schools, businesses, and public places shuttered their doors. Borders were closed, flights were cancelled, and we were all told to remain indoors unless we were buying groceries, picking up medication, or were declared an essential worker.
As more information on the Coronavirus was disclosed, including how it is transmitted, the public took action. Store shelves were cleared of masks, dry foods, meat, and, inexplicably, toilet paper. The WHO (World Health Organization) initially advised that masks were not effective in preventing the virus’s spread. They have since changed their stance, reporting that a combination of wearing a mask coupled with appropriate social distancing could help flatten the curve. As businesses slowly reopen their doors and resume their operations, many have implemented a mandatory mask rule for anyone wishing to enter their establishments. As the number of mandatory mask rule signage increased, the number “medically exempt” from wearing masks seems to have increased as well.
One of the more popular anti-mask, medically exempt stories is about a San Diego Starbucks employee named Lenin. Lenin declined to service to a customer named Amber Lynn Gilles for refusing to wear a mask. In an attempt to shame and embarrass Lenin, Amber took out her cell phone and took a photo of him, which she posted online, ridiculing him for not serving her. She also stated that she had a medical exemption.
Her attempt to shame the barista backfired when a Gofundme started on Lenin’s behalf raised over $100,000 (half of which Amber insists is hers).
While I cannot confirm whether Amber has a legitimate reason for not wearing a mask, I do know that I found a collage of pictures showing Amber wearing various masks, including a cloth mask, a Halloween mask, and a paintball mask.
I recently came across a video of a woman insisting that she was exempt from wearing a mask while she waved a card from the “Freedom to Breathe Agency.” The woman threatened a store employee with legal action if she did not back down on her stance against the anti-masker. It’s no surprise that the card is fake, complete with a Department of Justice logo to lend credibility to it.
My research shows the Freedom to Breathe act is a piece of legislation out of Minnesota from 2007 restricting smoking tobacco products in public spaces/areas.
The Centres for Disease Control (CDC) recommends that masks not be worn by those under the age of 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, is unconscious, incapacitated, or unable to remove the mask without assistance. The CDC’s website doesn’t seem to specify which medical conditions would meet the requirement of being medically exempt from wearing a mask. Dr. David Kaufman, MD, has stated that there are no known medical conditions (outside of a severe skin condition or a burn) that would prevent someone from wearing a cloth mask. I have read some online comments where people state that they cannot wear a mask due to panic attacks resulting from past physical and mental trauma. The inability to wear a mask due to such trauma is something that I can sympathize with. Faceguards may be a more appropriate method of protection for such individuals.
Often intermingled in the rationale of those who claim to be medically exempt are those who believe that wearing masks is the government’s way of controlling us, they’re ineffective, and those who wear them are sheep. I found the government control argument slightly comical, as all (or most) individuals are assigned a SSN, a number that identifies you to the government. The government also makes you pay property taxes on your home, whether or not you have paid off your mortgage in full. If you’re concerned about government control, wouldn’t these issues be more pressing? As for the effectiveness of masks, I think we can agree that they are not 100% effective in preventing the spread of the Coronavirus. However, wearing a mask is undoubtedly better than wearing no mask, and wearing a mask coupled with appropriate social distancing when possible is the best way to help flatten the curve. Wearing a mask does not make someone a sheep. It means that that person is concerned about their health and well-being and that of their family, friends, and the general public. The simple act of wearing a mask can also help protect the public’s vulnerable members, including those who are elderly, immunosuppressed, have cancer, type 2 diabetes, etc.
The upside to wearing a mask is that you not only protect yourself, but you also protect those around you, including those who cannot wear a mask for valid medical reasons. If, for some reason, we eventually find out that masks are utterly ineffective in preventing the spread of the Coronavirus, the worst that would have happened is that you were slightly inconvenienced by having a piece of cloth on your face. If you are truly opposed to wearing masks, then own it and speak/practice your truth. I may disagree with your stance, but at least you’re being truthful about your reasoning behind not wearing a mask. But for the love of God, please stop lying about being medically exempt from wearing a mask. Someone else’s life may depend on it.