Nosotros tin can all sympathise why dullards get thrown off flights or banned for refusing to wear a mask, but two-year-olds? Notwithstanding that's what happened on a JetBlue flying when a little daughter could not go along her mask on. How far is too far? Should JetBlue have removed a family unit of seven because a minor kid could not go on her mask on?

JetBlue Removed Family Of Seven After 2-Year-Old Refuses To Wear Mask

Chaya Bruck and her six children were forced off a JetBlue flight from Orlando to Newark this calendar week after her two-year-old daughter could non go along a mask on. Now to exist clear, Bruck did non want to her girl to wear a mask. Furthermore, she was admonished on the Newark to Orlando flight that her girl had to habiliment the mask, but was just given a warning. The same crew happened to be operating the return flying.

Bruck told ABC 7:

"Like what, am I going to tie her hands and feet? How am I going to get her to? I took out a mask and tried to put in on. She pulled it off."

Now she is considering a lawsuit (which will neglect…she has no instance).

JetBlue issued a lengthy but impersonal statement:

"During these unprecedented times, our first priority is to keep crewmembers and customers safe, and we've quickly introduced new safety policies and procedures throughout the pandemic. Specifically, our face covering policy was updated about recently on August 10 to ensure everyone is wearing a face covering – adults and children alike – to assist prevent the spread of coronavirus. Children historic period 2 and over must habiliment a face up covering, consistent with CDC guidelines, which say "Masks should not be worn by children under the age of 2."

"Customers receive an email before their flying outlining the latest safety protocols and face covering policies. Our crewmembers are ready to assist customers in the airport and onboard who might demand back up. We have a flexible rebooking policy for those who are unable to run into this requirement, and customers who refuse to follow these standards after requests from crewmembers will be reviewed for further travel eligibility on JetBlue.

JetBlue says its hands are tied considering the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends all people over 2 wear masks. Here'southward what the CDC really says:

  • Masks should Not be worn by children under the historic period of 2 or anyone who has problem breathing, is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.

Well, Bruck admits that her daughter pulled the mask right off and then that the "unable to remove the mask" exception doesn't employ…

While Bruck's behavior is suspect, tin can nosotros discuss the concept of a 2-year-old a wearing mask? To my readers who are parents of young children, are you as incredulous about this as I am?

Part of me thinks for every idiot at that place is an idiotic penchant to allow rules overrule common sense. Shame on JetBlue for kick off an entire family because a two-year-old child could not keep a mask on. But role of me likewise thinks Bruck was warned and JetBlue is certainly allowed to conduct business in this manner.

I'1000 not an anti-mask zealot. Quite the contrary, I've scorned those who lie almost medical weather considering they remember their "freedoms" are being infringed upon. We article of clothing a mask to show solidity with one another, noting that the inconvenience of wearing a mask is not outweighed past the protection such masks may provide in stopping the spread of virus.

And while we accept to describe the line somewhere, I discover myself drawing the same conclusion as I did when Southwest kicked off an autistic three-year-erstwhile concluding calendar week:

I do non see why going from historic period two to iii (or here, from age one to two) all of a sudden renders a child a public health threat and am much more comfy with an exception for young children than adults.

Overall, I understand (having a three-twelvemonth-old myself) that children do not like things over their face up. Should this mean they cannot fly (and therefore families cannot fly) for the residual of the pandemic? Should this hateful, taken to its logical extension, that in that location should be no exceptions whatsoever so babies are banned considering they cannot wear masks? After all, if the signal of a mask is to preclude your germs from spreading, why exercise babies and toddlers get a free pass?

The ensuing discussion will be predictable. Most will say "no exceptions" because they do non have children or view unmasked children as an unacceptable gamble. I'd simply posit that if families are forced to drive instead of fly, that carries inherent risks equally well to themselves and others.

Decision

These masks stories are going to continue. We take to talk about them. We have to somehow deal with them considering they are non going away. Maybe it'southward just me, just if the line is capricious and must exist drawn somewhere, I'd exist far more than comfy drawing it at age four than age 2.

How about you?