Danny B

Church aint cancelled.

Danny B

caretaker

There's a big tent set up for a camp meeting on the edge of the hood; it was going on yesterday but not sure how full it was. The sign said Free Hotdogs! There's always been an evangelical element around here, but one big tent seems to hold them all.

scrubbedexpat091

Has it been confirmed from an independent source that the issue was the 3 year old?

At one point it was parents saying the issue was with the 19 month old (not required to wear a mask under Westjet's policy or Transport Canada rules.) and the airline said it was the 3 year old.



Anyone know if this is a legit news site? Only seems to be reported on 2 places this link, and the conservative wacky rebel news.

https://lakesuperiornews.com/News/Mi...young-children

Danny B

Considering that the entire flight was cancelled due to fears of crew safety, I'd guess that the rest of the passengers were on the side of the parents and were pissed off at the overzealous staff who wanted the 19 month old baby to mask up.

As they say, there are three sides to every story. The passengers side, WestJets side, and the truth.

BristolUK

I believe you made the point earlier that it was not a short flight? So what proportion of the duration of time on the plane would be taken up by eating the snack provided? Less than a tenth? A small fraction of the overall time and, because they are, you know, eating, their mouths are likely to be mostly closed compared to the other 90% of the time.

printer

You believe what you want but please tell me the difference between one reluctant 3 year old and lets say 100 other passengers who will at some point remove said masks, not once but possibly several times over that duration for eating/drinking? Mask work very well IF worn properly 100% of the time. If there are people not wearing them correctly, removing them on and off then the whole "safety" issue is a mute point.
Now if the three year old was running up and down the aircraft without mask sneezing and coughing everywhere i could understand the concern.
Like others have said the plane did not take off because safety of "the crew" was an issue so clearly the majority on board felt it was heavy handed.

BristolUK

Seriously? Removing a mask several times for an airplane snack?

Unless you're thinking spear something with fork, move/remove mask, pop morsel in mouth, put mask back in place, chew, go mmmm-mmm delcious (to yourself), swallow, remove mask, sip drink, savour refreshing taste, pause spear other tasty morsel, move mask, pop morsel in mouth, cover up and so on, you are somewhat prone to exaggeration with your terrorist analogies and blowing out of proportion a small snack on a 3.5 to 4 hour flight.

dbd33

But the way they do it now is that everyone stays in their car inside a large building. There's no close proximity to the other attendees.

Danny B

Not at this place they don't.

https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/sunday-m...dssbcitybrowse

dbd33

Did you read your link? I've quoted it below. You will note that, while that is not a drive-in congregation, there isn't room for that in Toronto, all manner of precautions are being taken. The crowd is, obviously, impervious to reason, as the event is a church service, but it would be incorrect to suggest that they're behaving in the manner of the crowd at a Trump rally or as the parents of the unmanaged child think reasonable. Attendees will get turfed if they take their masks off.

"Sunday Mass Registration

About this Event

We look forward to welcoming you back to church! Due to capacity restrictions for gatherings in Ontario, we invite you to register for seats for Sunday Mass. Families from the same household may sit together, but one ticket is required per person.

Please note that every reasonable precaution has been and will continue to be taken by the Archdiocese of Toronto to protect your health and safety. However, there can be no guarantees of complete protection as there will always be risks of contracting viral infection through large gatherings.

Please do not enter the church if you have a temperature, feel ill or have been in contact with a COVID-19 positive individual over the past two weeks.

Additional information:

• Masks or face coverings are mandatory as per City By-law.

• Please look for signs marking the proper entrance door.

• Sanitize your hands upon entry.

• Please maintain physical distancing at all times. Stay 2 metres (or 6 feet) away from others"

printer

So what is the protocol then? How long does the mask remain round the chin while the snack and or drink are taken? How many people are doing this at same time? Lets say you were sat in row of 3 and you didn't know the other two and they both lowered masks to eat/drink just for a few minutes would that be an acceptable risk to you? How would that risk compare to a child in another row seated with their parents but maskless?

MillieF

This is all stupid. We are ALL in the middle of something we don't understand and the are starting to get into arguments about rules. These parents should never have taken this three year old on a flight in a pandemic unnecessarily. What IS necessary during a pandemic? I wish people would just Shut Up and stay where they are.

Dbd...thank you...I had forgotten drugs...my son regularly had a 'harmless' enough sleep inducer from the age of 6 months when we used to come to Canada to see my husband's parents. It stopped us, or the other passengers, from losing our minds on the ten hour flight...

dbd33

MillieF, I have a daughter who is autistic and who rocks back and forth with enough vigour to break the frames of seats in cars and aeroplanes. Melatonin worked for us. Coping with such an extreme leaves one with little tolerance for those troubled by the need to have a little fabric on their faces. I'm with you in wondering why a family would be on a flight anyway, what did they need to do that required all of them?

printer

That is something that maybe true BUT we don't know whether it was unnecessary. IF they were on a jolly, kids in tow then it was a stupid idea. But maybe there was a very legitimate reason. Maybe the child was usually very agreeable and the parents had no worries about taking them. Every child has a meltdown for whatever reason at some point. Dbd was proactive as he knew just how his daughter could act up and was used to dealing with the issue, maybe these parents didn't forsee that kind of issue, its all guesswork of course unless we get more of the story. I don't think there was an argument about the rules as such just the rather heavy handed nature they were applied