The COVID-19 pandemic

[danbrotherston]

My understanding is that sort of thing is tricky from a human rights standpoint; it's similar with guide dogs and other accommodations. You cannot be compelled to disclose anything related to a medical condition, even if the condition is not specified.

I don’t see the problem. For people who sincerely need this accommodation, getting some sort of credential from the medical system is not an unreasonable burden; and once they have it, they don’t need to tell anybody anything else other than that they do indeed have the credential.

There seems to be a school of thought which basically says that people needing an accommodation shouldn’t ever have to do anything to obtain it; but that is inconsistent with the whole concept of stuff being mandatory. And in our society, I don’t see how it can work to have everything being optional. Things like vaccines for school kids and obeying traffic laws can’t just be things that are only done by unusually civic-minded individuals.

This is absolutely the case, you see this in accessible parking placards, and in guide dogs, both of which have an authentication system in place, which only involves your MD authenticating your need, and nobody else knowing anything beyond the fact that you have the need...which is public knowledge anyway.

I'd be happy to see something similar, but I can understand that it's harder to implement on short notice.

I also think it's irrelevant. There are some assholes who will abuse the system, we have to live with assholes, but they're rare and don't matter...we've seen probably the few hundred people in our city who would do something shitty like that live on TV last night and on social media for the past few weeks.

What matters is that the majority follow this, and the majority will.  It comes down to two things in my mind, it's easier to conform. And some people just fundamentally need an authoritarian to tell them what to do.  This policy has been effective in Guelph according to the delegation there.

And at the end of the day, if for some reason KW has an unusually high proportion of assholes, well, we can deal with that then.

[tomh009]

I'd be happy to see something similar, but I can understand that it's harder to implement on short notice.

I also think it's irrelevant. There are some assholes who will abuse the system, we have to live with assholes, but they're rare and don't matter...we've seen probably the few hundred people in our city who would do something shitty like that live on TV last night and on social media for the past few weeks.

What matters is that the majority follow this, and the majority will.  It comes down to two things in my mind, it's easier to conform. And some people just fundamentally need an authoritarian to tell them what to do.  This policy has been effective in Guelph according to the delegation there.

Yes. I think it'll be less than 20% of the people refusing, and hopefully well less than 10%. That would already have a significant impact on infection risk, and help us get the number of active cases down to a dozen or two. And get the Ontario new case counts down to low double digits, assuming now breakouts.

Masks now mandatory in almost all of southern Ontario (except York, Niagara and Halton regions):

• Toronto
  
• Durham
  
• Waterloo
  
• Peel
  
• Kingston
  
• Windsor-Essex County
  
• Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph
  
• Lennox and Addington County
  
• Frontenac County
  
• Middlesex-London (on public transit and where physical distancing is not possible)
  
• Prescott-Russell
  
• Leeds and Grenville
  
• Lanark
  
• Renfrew County
  
• United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry
  
• Sudbury-Manitoulin
  
• Nipissing District
  

[Bytor]

If you claim an exemption from some policy based on a supposed disability, the business manager/owner is allowed to ask you what your disability is and the extent of it in order for them to, in good faith, come up with a "reasonable accommodation" for you. In the current context of covid-19 and wearing masks in stores, that could be giving you a transparent face-shield to wear while inside, or asking what you wish to purchase and bringing it to you outside.

If you refuse that reasonable accommodation, the business is under no obligation to let you in mask- or shield-free. Also, my understanding is that if you refuse to divulge the nature of your disability in order to allow the business to come up with that reasonable accommodation, they also have no obligation to let you in. In both cases, no legal liability attaches to the business that would allow them to be charged under any law, or for you to sue them, successfully in civil court. You'd have to show that the request for you to divulge the nature of your disability was not made in good faith, like if they had no intention of reaching a reasonable accommodation.

The point is that claiming a disability is not a carte blanche for people to ignore or follow rules at their leisure and that the law consistently enshrines things like "good faith" and "reasonable accommodation" in the AODA, OHRC, and beyond that have well-known, long-standing interpretations behind them.

[tomh009]

That's not how the bylaw reads, though. "No person shall be required to provide proof." And no explicit provisions for businesses to refuse service.
https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/resou...20-035.pdf

[tomh009]

Waterloo Region reported four cases today; the new case increase was 0.3% of the total cases to date and 6.0% of the current active caseload. New cases averaging 4.0% of actives over the past seven days. Active cases in the region were down by one to 67, and down 28 in the past seven days, from 95 to 67.

Next testing data release on Friday.

Ontario reported 118 new cases today, for a seven-day average of 137 new cases. 202 recoveries and nine deaths translated to a decrease of 93 active cases, which are at another new low of 1,673, after a weekly total change of -333. 22,832 tests for a 0.5% positivity rate. The positivity rate is averaging 0.65% for the past seven days.

The new cases are 0.3% of the total and 7.1% of the number of active cases. New cases averaging 7.4% of actives over the past seven days.

Hospital population continues to drop; it's now at 123 (-8) while the ICU population crept up slightly to 35 (+1).

[danbrotherston]

That's not how the bylaw reads, though. "No person shall be required to provide proof." And no explicit provisions for businesses to refuse service.
https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/resou...20-035.pdf

It is clear there is no requirement to divulge your reason for being unable to wear a mask, that would be a clear as day privacy violation.

And no, there is no provision for a business to refuse service. But they are only required to accomodate you, and I'm not sure where that comes down, if a business chose to service those who cannot wear masks by providing curbside service, would that be acceptable, I am not sure.

Honestly, it's unlikely to be a big deal, but it does bug me that there are people in our community who would abuse this, far more than their not wearing masks affects me.  I mean, Godwin has been fully invoked, there are numerous people comparing the requirement to wear masks with being a victim of the holocaust.  Frankly, it's sickening how absolutely fragile these people are.

It's also interesting to me that they are generally also MAGA idiots. It's scary to see how much Trumpism has infected our society as well, how many of deciples he's managed to brainwash here...truly a scary situation. They fact that he has made masks an issue like this is only the tip of the ice burg. The pandemic will end, but the toxin in our society will remain.  Of course, optimistically, I could just assume they're all cleverly disguised twitter bots.

[Coke6pk]

If you claim an exemption from some policy based on a supposed disability, the business manager/owner is allowed to ask you what your disability is and the extent of it in order for them to, in good faith, come up with a "reasonable accommodation" for you. In the current context of covid-19 and wearing masks in stores, that could be giving you a transparent face-shield to wear while inside, or asking what you wish to purchase and bringing it to you outside.

If you refuse that reasonable accommodation, the business is under no obligation to let you in mask- or shield-free. Also, my understanding is that if you refuse to divulge the nature of your disability in order to allow the business to come up with that reasonable accommodation, they also have no obligation to let you in. In both cases, no legal liability attaches to the business that would allow them to be charged under any law, or for you to sue them, successfully in civil court. You'd have to show that the request for you to divulge the nature of your disability was not made in good faith, like if they had no intention of reaching a reasonable accommodation.

The point is that claiming a disability is not a carte blanche for people to ignore or follow rules at their leisure and that the law consistently enshrines things like "good faith" and "reasonable accommodation" in the AODA, OHRC, and beyond that have well-known, long-standing interpretations behind them.

This would work if the business owner and subsequent staff were on board and willing to enforce the rules.  Businesses can put rules into place for safety reasons, even if they may be otherwise discrimitory. (IE. Helicopter rides require passengers be below a certain weight or buy multiple seats based on weight.  This is due to the weight restrictions.  Same for height/weight restrictions at amusement parks).

That being said, I feel compassion for the business owner who is being forced to enforce the rule.  Yes, you can ask to have the customer put on a mask, even refuse service, but as we have seen from countless videos south of the border, there is an inherent risk of verbal and/or physical abuse that may follow.  I can see many business owners (for the safety of their employees) stand back from creating controversy.  

On a side note, what is a reasonable reason why someone cannot wear a mask?  I get that they might slightly restrict airflow, but they aren't duct tape either.  If such a small airflow difference can be so detrimental, should this be the same person who shouldn't be in public during a respitory virus  outbreak?

Coke

[Bytor]

I'll be plain - my suspicion is that most of the people using the disability complaint to not wear a mask don't really have one.

Why? Because so many of them arrive at that claim after having all their other arguments knocked flat. For example, they start of with the hypoxia argument and wearing the mask while jogging on a hot day day, which is countered by showing how that's a strawman because the basks bylaw is only for indoors. Then they switch to wearing it too long has negative effects because of the hypoxia, with the large number of medical professionals that wear masks all day long no problem. Then they talk about asthma, which is countered by how many of those medical professionals have asthma, too. Then they'll post a video about somebody measuring O₂ content with a gas meter and get countered by showing with a pulse-oximeter that it doesn't make a difference. Then, finally, they pull the "trump" card of disability, expecting it to give them carte blanche. If they actually had a disability (or had family members with one) they would know from past experiences that what I outlined previously about "reasonable accommodation" is true. Disabled people tend to speak up right away and say "No, I need that service animal with me" at a restaurant, for example, and they tend to do it politely, almost apologetically, rather than being a jerk about it. They also tend to have full-formed, end-stage arguments with solid evidence rather than this chain of weak failures because they've had to provide it in the past.

But this lack of understanding of the nuance of what the AODA or OHRC require is lost on the people making the claim of disability about masks because they don't understand that the law is about good-faith questions and reasonable accommodation, having never actually interacted with those laws before. Thus they expect their demand to be met without having them make reasonable concessions and that they don't have to say why, outing themselves as ignorant.

As a further "because", they are doing this because they that simply not wanting to wear a mask to help prevent spread is petty and selfish and lacking in compassion and empathy for others and they don't want to be seen like that. Thus they glom onto the disability argument so as to not appear like asshats. Sometimes unconsciously, sometimes deliberately.

[tomh009]

From today's social media (thanks KevinT):

   

[danbrotherston]

If you claim an exemption from some policy based on a supposed disability, the business manager/owner is allowed to ask you what your disability is and the extent of it in order for them to, in good faith, come up with a "reasonable accommodation" for you. In the current context of covid-19 and wearing masks in stores, that could be giving you a transparent face-shield to wear while inside, or asking what you wish to purchase and bringing it to you outside.

If you refuse that reasonable accommodation, the business is under no obligation to let you in mask- or shield-free. Also, my understanding is that if you refuse to divulge the nature of your disability in order to allow the business to come up with that reasonable accommodation, they also have no obligation to let you in. In both cases, no legal liability attaches to the business that would allow them to be charged under any law, or for you to sue them, successfully in civil court. You'd have to show that the request for you to divulge the nature of your disability was not made in good faith, like if they had no intention of reaching a reasonable accommodation.

The point is that claiming a disability is not a carte blanche for people to ignore or follow rules at their leisure and that the law consistently enshrines things like "good faith" and "reasonable accommodation" in the AODA, OHRC, and beyond that have well-known, long-standing interpretations behind them.

This would work if the business owner and subsequent staff were on board and willing to enforce the rules.  Businesses can put rules into place for safety reasons, even if they may be otherwise discrimitory. (IE. Helicopter rides require passengers be below a certain weight or buy multiple seats based on weight.  This is due to the weight restrictions.  Same for height/weight restrictions at amusement parks).

That being said, I feel compassion for the business owner who is being forced to enforce the rule.  Yes, you can ask to have the customer put on a mask, even refuse service, but as we have seen from countless videos south of the border, there is an inherent risk of verbal and/or physical abuse that may follow.  I can see many business owners (for the safety of their employees) stand back from creating controversy.  

On a side note, what is a reasonable reason why someone cannot wear a mask?  I get that they might slightly restrict airflow, but they aren't duct tape either.  If such a small airflow difference can be so detrimental, should this be the same person who shouldn't be in public during a respitory virus  outbreak?

Coke

Just to be clear, the bylaw as passed makes no requirement for businesses to enforce it.

Frankly, I think many of the reasons are dubious, but it depends on the masks. We have disposable paper masks, they have almost zero effect on my ability to breath, but I've heard others wearing different types of masks have more difficulty.  That being said, you're right, anyone who has a legitimate breathing issue which would limit their ability to wear masks (and this is like <1% of the population) should be begging for this bylaw because COVID would be an almost certain death sentence for them.

There will be lots of people however, who honestly, or dishonestly, confuse discomfort/something new as "I medically can't breath". This is especially true given people's emotional response to wearing a mask and inability to understand their bodies response to an emotional experience.

[robdrimmie]

I'll be plain - my suspicion is that most of the people using the disability complaint to not wear a mask don't really have one.

Your suspicion is warranted I think, but any action against anyone not wearing a mask is an act of prejudice against people with disabilities. Neither of us is qualified in any way to determine who should and shouldn't be wearing mask. I have several family members with hard to spot disabilities and this sort of bullshit "well if we don't credential people some people might get away with something!" affects actual people with actual disabilities far more than people who exploit it.

Just fucking let it go already. Assholes will exploit the loopholes, that's a given. It's a commons, and it's tragic. Blah fucking blah.

It is also assholes that will name and shame and induce public drama against people not wearing masks. I don't want to deal with either type of asshole. Shaming people for being overweight or for not using condoms is a proven way for public health initiatives to fail, and all this hand-wringing about people who will exploit this loophole does exactly that but with masks.

Defund the police in your heart, too.

[Bytor]

I'll be plain - my suspicion is that most of the people using the disability complaint to not wear a mask don't really have one.

Defund the police in your heart, too.

Criticism duly noted. However, I have no intention of calling people out in real life. On the twitters, however, I'm going to keep pointing out what the AODA says. People with invisible disabilities (I am one, BTW) likely already know what I say, and the liars will hopefully be discouraged from trying if they know they will get pushback. I'd also like to encourage businesses to say "OK, here's a facemask face shield for you to use while in our store since you can;'t wear a mask", too.

[tomh009]

Defund the police in your heart, too.

Criticism duly noted. However, I have no intention of calling people out in real life. On the twitters, however, I'm going to keep pointing out what the AODA says. People with invisible disabilities (I am one, BTW) likely already know what I say, and the liars will hopefully be discouraged from trying if they know they will get pushback. I'd also like to encourage businesses to say "OK, here's a face shield facemask for you to use while in our store since you can;'t wear a mask", too.

I think this is what you intended ...

[robdrimmie]

the liars will hopefully be discouraged from trying if they know they will get pushback

See, but any one liar getting pushback means several non-liars are getting pushback and have to defend themselves. Those people may feel that going out will bring really shitty social situations. It's a poor tradeoff for something that doesn't even appear to be a significant issue in Ontario. Thus far, at least.

My guess (not educated) is that the population of liars will be low enough that there will be far more risk from people wearing masks and not social distancing than there will be from the entire population of those who don't wear masks, for whatever reason. Masks are only one piece to curtailing transmission, and not even the most important one (distance is!).

[danbrotherston]

the liars will hopefully be discouraged from trying if they know they will get pushback

See, but any one liar getting pushback means several non-liars are getting pushback and have to defend themselves. Those people may feel that going out will bring really shitty social situations. It's a poor tradeoff for something that doesn't even appear to be a significant issue in Ontario. Thus far, at least.

My guess (not educated) is that the population of liars will be low enough that there will be far more risk from people wearing masks and not social distancing than there will be from the entire population of those who don't wear masks, for whatever reason. Masks are only one piece to curtailing transmission, and not even the most important one (distance is!).

First of all, this isn't necessarily true, you're assuming that believing people are lying is targeted at random, and there are fewer liars than non-liars. I think both are unlikely.

I expect the majority of people who claim an exemption to be lying. My basis for this belief is from my experience that masks provide very little impediment to breathing, therefore, one must have an extremely serious breathing problem to be unable to wear a mask. And number who would lie about having a medical reason, while still rare, I suspect is less rare.

I expect beliefs about people faking to be relatively well targeted, largely because people who choose not to wear a mask for reasons other than medical limitations, are unlikely to be quiet about those other beliefs, more, unlike someone with a severe breathing problem, is also likely to be very unafraid of the virus.

To be fair, I'm making a lot of assumptions, but we will see.

But I do think that it doesn't really matter, we only need 80% (My intuition is that the number is actually higher, but the study I've seen quote says 80%) to have an effective policy, and I still have hope that the asshole population in the region is pretty low, say under 5%.