Face masks: A compromise between economic and public health fears?

The government needs to stand up and make it clear, that in the light of the medical evidence and in keeping with the British public’s concept of freedom, face coverings should not be needed.

Last week, the government announced that the use of face masks in public is being seriously considered, perhaps as the sweetener between keeping the risk of Covid-19 transmission as minimal as possible and getting people back to work. No details have yet emerged as to what this may look like, but given the fact that Boris Johnson is set to announce how the lockdown will end next week, is it possible that they could become compulsory, particularly in areas of confined public space such as trains and buses? Will he follow what the Scottish government has already done, and ask people to cover their faces when in places of public confinement?

I certainly fear he might. The “Stay Home, Save Lives” mantra did much to instil a sense of fear into the population. Perhaps in the face of a growing revolt in some sectors of the economy, the government must now seek to undo this message, maybe because it knows a colossal economic hit is on the horizon. I can see why face masks will appeal to some people.

But do they do any good at all? According to many, they don’t. Indeed, the evidence for their use is patchy at best. Both the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDPC) believe that covering one’s face does not offer much of a defence against Covid-19. Early in the pandemic, the government did not recommend the covering of the face, even SAGE said the science behind the idea was “weak”. Both the WHO and ECDPC only recommend a facial covering for those who are caring for someone who is suffering with coronavirus.

In my opinion, the potential U-turn on this issue is driven by a government which wants to be seen to be compromising between the two camps of ‘lockdowners’ and ‘openers’. Some will say this is a noble idea, but the practicalities of this are questionable. Like all aspects of this debate, we must wonder if it is not only practical, but is it also a measured and proportionate response? Firstly, the idea that anyone should be made to wear a mask of any kind in public has a dehumanising effect. It offers only obedience and uniformity, showing us all that we are not in control of ourselves. Why should the state, or a transport provider insist on covering a face? For me, a much better way would be giving the public the informed information and leave them to make the decision.

However, in these times of groupthink and public shaming, I feel that not wearing a mask or a facial covering in public would start to bring out the worst in some – like those who complain to the police when someone goes out for exercise longer than the permitted time or who shame a fellow citizen for not applauding the NHS. As I and many others have seen already, there is a general smugness amongst some in the population who believe their virtue and their state worship is a cause more noble than those who oppose it.

The state supporting the wearing of face masks would be an ideal opportunity for such people. And what if the state did support it? If private businesses insist on using a face covering, will you be denied the right to travel on a bus, a train, go to your place of work or go shopping? If you happen to forget it, or simply don’t want to, at what stage might the police get involved in any legal dispute? As we saw early in the lockdown, the state loves to get its hands on new powers and regulations – the opportunity to fine someone for not having their mask on the train would surely be a temptation too great for our state worshipping institutions.

Some of course will say that this will not happen. But it already has. Despite the WHO saying face coverings lead people into a false sense of security, airlines have already started to impose their own hygiene measures at airports, including the compulsory wearing of face masks. Personally I find it strange that, for years now, the covering of the face has been a major security issue at airports, yet this is now seen as superfluous in the face of a new enemy. Even on the Eurostar, people have been warned that not covering the face will get you refused travel on its services.

The government needs to stand up and make it clear, that in the light of the medical evidence and in keeping with the British public’s concept of freedom, face coverings should not be needed. But given that they have created the fear that now spreads amongst us, I very much doubt they will. So, what will come of it? The answer: bullying police officers stopping you in the street; denied access to public (taxpayer subsidised) transport; non-wearers refused entry to Tesco; neighbours complaining about you on social media; or even being penalised at your place of work for not having your face covered.

For the time being at least, we may need to get used to it.