Alright, let’s do this again. Not including face shields/other face coverings in your statements is ableist and bad, doing otherwise costs you nothing, and it’s the moral thing to do. [Vulgarity is cultural and very much intended, deal with it.] https://uspirg.org/resources/usp/shut-it-down-start-over-do-it-right

Not everyone can wear a mask. Mandating masks, even through informal norms, hurts them. Face masks do have an effect, but the effect size isn’t so great, and the options not so limited that it at all justifies this kind of ableism (face shields have a +ve effect size too). /2

And in any case, it’s not lost on me that folks always forget disability—in a broad sense—as a final refuge of public health’s ability to marginalize. When a simple change of language can help this. /3

Ob1: But nondisabled people won’t be masked then, or try to claim they are disabled.

So fucking what? You in the business of injecting immunocompromised people with vaccines because Andrew Wakefield exists? No, you’re not. /4

(NB: messaging around face coverings has been a *disaster* from the scientific community. Just like the Lancet decided to teach the controversy with Wakefield all those years ago & we’re still paying for it, hashing science out on the broadest platform is a terrible strategy.) /5

Ob2: no one really loses O2-sat from wearing a mask.

Fuck off, they took my wife’s mask away when her O2-sat tanked from the mask. In a hospital. About to undergo surgery. Which is quite a bit higher risk than you freaking out in Whole Foods. I guarantee she’s not alone. /6

(Incidentally, those Tik Tok videos of people taking their O2-sat? Which only proves they aren’t disabled? Is proof that giving healthcare workers access to social media was a goddamned mistake. Everyone of you should be ashamed of yourselves.) /7

Ob3: if your wife is so disabled she doesn’t need to go outside.

Are you even listening to yourself any more? Really? This document advocates mandating masks, and only masks, for any form of indoor or outdoor activity. It’s preposterous. /8

Ob4: But face masks won’t protect against airborne COVID.

Get out. We had the same fight about Ebola. E B O L A. This is not a credible piece of science. And in any case, we are talking about a small number of people who can still produce a positive effect against droplets. /9

Ob5: We’re just trying to minimize risk.

Scientists/clinicians love to scoff at rational risk aversion and the precautionary principle. You don’t get to reclaim them because you’re scared & we fucked up, and you don’t get to punish people with disabilities as a result. /10

Further, you’re not undermining risk by changing this wording, in this or any other document. You’re really not. You’re drastically benefiting a small number of vulnerable people at no cost to yourselves—except maybe taking an extra 2 minutes while you write. /11

If consequentialism—& scientists love to tell me how they love consequentialism—says anything, it is: if you can bring around substantive benefit at little to no cost, you are obligated too. That’s literally every paper by Singer. /12

This small change will actually make people's lives much, much better, in a substantial way, without compromising the message of this piece. Disabled people are locked in their homes too. More than the vast majority of people on this document. /13

If I’m mad, it’s because this is really, deeply personal to me. It sucks having to watch my colleagues and friends continually trip over their own shoes around disability—sometimes willfully—to the detriment of my wife. I will choose her over you 100% of the time. /14

If you can't navigate disability—even if no more complicated than just the ADA!—your writing team isn't complete. If you need a reader, *I can find you one.* There’s no excuse for this. Not given the people on this piece. \\fin