The Middle Ground on Face Coverings

Face coverings has been a contentious issue in our nation in dealing with the Covid-19 situation. One side believes that by covering ourselves up we will help prevent infection, while others are saying that face coverings are a threat to personal liberty.

Just because infections increased a day after the decision of San Bernardino County in late April does not mean we need to immediately go to a Los Angeles County type policy where you must have a face covering 24/7 except for driving your car when you are out of your home, but there should be a time and a place for face coverings. Exercising with a face covering is stupid because it inhibits your breathing, working a manual labor job with face coverings can also do the same thing. Perhaps quotas in warehouses could be reduced slightly to compensate for the wearing of face coverings if employer or state/county government mandates them.

Judge Georgia’s re-opening or San Bernardino County’s change of policy three or four weeks after before making a rash judgement.

There should be a time and a place for the utilization of face coverings. If you are working in a space shared with other people such as a cashier at a retail store, getting a haircut, or you might be under the weather wear one.

Also, there needs to be protection against discrimination against the disabled. Expecting a severely autistic person to wear a facemask is an absurd prospect due to sensory issues. A Wal-Mart in Riverside also faced negative backlash on this issue recently when they turned away a customer with a disabled adult child.

Simply tossing your coverings due to guidelines from San Bernardino and Riverside County is not a good idea, but we should be tactful in how we interact with society.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.