navylad

indeed, the advice I am giving though may we’ll be belts and braces. If you get it on your medical record, should there be any dispute which could just as easy (and probably more likely) to occur on other transport, you are clearly able to demonstrate one has behaved reasonable.

The issue with the using the EA reference, a piece of legislation I use professionally, is whilst a mask may cause the feeling of claustrophobia, they are unlikely to have this recorded in medical notes as they don’t previously have a recreational or occupational need to wear a mask, so then it is difficult to demonstrate it is a chronic condition.

Having said that, if it is causing severe distress that is clearly a reasonable excuse, just worth getting it on record somewhere. You could ask for a note to be made in the booking, but if it’s in your medical record, this will also be evidence of this is required for other airlines or for using other forms of transport.

Sorry, I’m prob not the best to ask, although I wear surgical and FFP3 masks for clinical work, and also occasionally wear gas mask and breathing apparatus, I personally haven’t had any issues.

i personally have a selection of three tightly woven cotton masks for social use, prioritising social distance, avoidance of face to face contact and regularly washing hands.

For Someone feeling claustrophobic, they could try a more formed mask that doesn’t cling to the face or the surgical masks as they tend to be lighter and allow more heat exchange.

Hope that helps.

cauchy

I think you're under-estimating how tricky it can be for someone who's not used to breaking rules to now be in the position where they might be. For many people, "technical compliance" with the rules still feels like breaking them. If you're one of those people that don't want to cause a fuss, you are genuinely stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one.

But you're right, there's no serious enforcement. It's an average of 2 fines a day in England - and I doubt the government is going to go after the lifelong rebels. But I'm not sure this helps the OP's wife.

ahmetdouas

OP I completely understand what your wife is going through. What I did at LHR was that I kept a very low profile and stayed away from people as much as I can and no one bothered me or asked me questions, but chances are you will be stared at. If you wear a face shield, at least it shows you are protecting yourself and you will stand out less.

It's not necessarily breaking the law that's the issue here (you aren't), it's people's perception of the situation. A previous thread I started got replied to that BA specifically allow for medical exemptions and will not challenge you on it. Hope you find a good solution in an unpleasant situation.

rapidex

The trip report on "head for points" this morning, 1 pax at LCY who refused to wear a mask was denied boarding. As travel returns, I would expect to see more of these stories.

Misco60

On a train from Berlin to Switzerland last week, the (clearly very frustrated) train manager made an announcement that face coverings were mandatory and that if anyone didn't wish to wear one they should leave the train at the next station. I, too, think that this will become more common on all forms of transport, and that passengers with genuine medical exemption will be expected to prove that exemption in some way.

Discus

Have in mind that that that (1) "face mask on aircraft thing" is an international IATA(?)-reccomendation which in many places are not in sync with local legislation/reccomendation (2) some airlines are setting their own rules (3) some airlines and some countries are only accepting proper masks where they are to be used (no home-made masks, scarfs, bandanas etc).

Check local rules and regulations wherever you go, it varies by airline by country and by local region!

For example in Spain you can get a EUR100 fine for not wearing a mask, and in Norway airlines are saying masks on planes are mandatory (no scarfs/bandanas!) even there are no local recommendation to use masks in Norway.

LTN Phobia

I was waiting for someone to witness that. Now we can openly wear something that could have caused us to be arrested (??) had we tried it during normal times.

Was there any reaction to the balaclava from security or BA though? Was it deemed to be legitimate, and did he/she have to take it off at security?

(Just reminiscing, on a slightly different matter, I guess a balaclava would have worked with IRIS but not with eGate)

orbitmic

Actually, that's the thing, personally, I would not consider that a face shield "covers" the mouth and nose. The reason I would say that is nothing to do with the fabric, but the fact that with a face shield, there is no contact, and as a result, the face shield simply does not deliver on the purpose on the regulation which is to make you (significantly) less likely to contaminate others if you are yourself infected. It's hard t find a good equivalent as an example, but I guess the closest thing I can think of is if you want to buy plastic-wrapped meat in a supermarket and you are given a piece of meat in a plastic bag instead, that is not really the same thing and I personally do not think that it would qualify as plastic-wrapped meat.

corporate-wage-slave

This was at T5 and he was going to a different flight to mine, so I don't actually know. He also had a baseball cap on, which unhinged the logical side to my brain. My guess is that security or BA wouldn't have worried, for all the heat this topic generates, in practical reality everyone is fairly relaxed about it - people aren't being questioned or checked, so long as something is being worn. A shoulder kaffiyeh is another option perhaps for the OP. You do have to remove or lower the covering when going through passport control, though typically gate staff don't ask people to do this for the passport check at boarding. The only places I've seen determined enforcement has been NL and Germany.

And just to repeat a suggestion made elsewhere by navylad, people with less visible disabilities can consider wearing the sunflower lanyard, Scotrail and LNER are actively suggesting this.

TheJayHatch

Going through LHR Tuesday & yesterday in my ‘bank robber’ scarf it did amuse me somewhat.

All face coverings are removed at security. For all the rules, I observed pragmatism to be prevail the prevailing sense. Surprisingly few jobsworths.

rapidex

I hope you were also wearing your suit with arrows woven in

EvilDoctorK

On a related note what's the BA rules with masks and small kids ? - there's no mention either way on the https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb...lcome-on-board pages

DFT guidance for public transport is kids under 11 don't need them ... I guess similar applies with BA but does anyone have any recent experience ?

corporate-wage-slave

No-one is expecting very young children to wear face coverings. My experience is that children in the 5 to 11 year age group - about half do wear masks on BA, half do not, no-one seems to mind. From say 11 year plus, generally they all wear masks. I suspect kids who do wear face coverings adapt to this reasonably well, particularly if they are fond of the design of their mask, but for those who don't adapt well to this then that's ok.

Tobias-UK

Yes, it is difficult to find an equivalent analogy, but ... isn't your meat still covered?

Looking at this purely from a legal perspective; if a face shield is insufficient this exposes an inadequacy in the drafting of the Regulation. There is no suggestion in the text of the Regulation that a face shield would not satisfy the requirement to wear a face covering.

If the government believed a face shield/visor to be insufficient the drafters could (and should) have drafted the Regulation accordingly, giving particular care to the definition of 'face covering'. It would have been a simple exercise to provide clarity. Given the Reg's wording, anyone finding themselves before the beak for choosing to wear a face shield would almost certainly be acquitted because the definition of 'face covering' in the Regulation is far too wide legally speaking.

A properly worn face shield covers the whole face, whereas a mask covers only the mouth and nose. Given the way the Regulation is drafted, nothing in there suggests a properly worn face shield would not satisfy the Regulation:

"2(1) In these Regulations— “face covering” means a covering of any type which covers a person’s nose and mouth;"

Perhaps the government will clarify this point when they introduce the Regulation which will require the wearing of 'face coverings' in shops.

corporate-wage-slave

I think this is very much the point that they chose not to be prescriptive. There is also the significant use of the word "include" in the exemptions, posted above (thereby suggesting there are other reasonable excuses). Having checked a lot of the regulations and Statutory Instruments, I've come to the view that HMG isn't in the game of trying to tie down every detail on the enforcement side, it is merely providing a mechanism for Fixed Penalty Notices for those who are stupid or wilful, with a high bar to that even. Otherwise so long as someone is making an endeavour then that's good enough. We will never resolve this pandemic by dragging lots of people to court, despite what some would appear to believe, so there is a method in this. Consequently I agree with you that a magistrate is likely to hold that a face shield is good enough, but in any event there is no danger of the OP having to worry about it getting to that point.