If there was a systemic downside of wearing masks, wouldn’t we have noticed it by now? After all, habitual mask-wearing in a modern setting is not a novel practice. It’s a long-established feature of 21st century life in a number of East Asian countries where masks are commonly used as protection against infectious disease and air pollution. Indeed, in the course of the current pandemic it quickly became clear that these countries have done a lot better than most of western Europe and North America in containing the spread.
As for the argument that mask-wearing might lead to a “false sense of security” (another WHO assertion), that is a question that could have been settled very quickly by the simple act of observing people. In fact, when researchers did observe they found that, if anything, the effect was in the other direction, i.e. mask-wearers taking more care than non-wearers. That’s not so surprising. The slight discomfort of wearing a mark, the deliberate act of putting one on and the sight of other people wearing them are all reminders of the pickle we’re in.
*
Speaking of the latest research, studies (e.g. here and here) are now coming in to confirm the common sense expectation that mask-wearing does indeed reduce transmission. The missing evidence base is missing no longer.
Still the question remains: why wasn’t common sense alone enough to prompt action on masks much earlier on? Nassim Taleb identifies numerous errors in the reasoning of those in power; not least mistaking absence of evidence for evidence of absence. With low-cost, low-risk measures like mask-wearing, the obvious thing to do is try them on the basis that they might work — because what have we got to lose?
Taleb has a long record of accusing the credentialed ‘expert class’ (and the decision-makers they serve) of having a poor philosophical understanding of risk — both epistemically and ethically. He has an equally long record of being proven right, including on the pandemic. He and his colleagues, Joe Norman and Yaneer Bar-Yam were early to realise the seriousness of the threat posed by Covid-19, early to argue for lockdown measures and early to criticise the initial errors of the UK response.
And yet while Taleb is right about the biases of the expert class, this doesn’t in itself explain why our system of government is biased to the expert class. In other words, as well as asking why the official advice was so negative about masks, we also need to ask why the decision-makers didn’t over-rule the experts and go ahead with masks-for-all on the basis of common sense.
It is sometimes said that the problem with common sense is that it isn’t common. But, in this case, it is precisely because it is. Unlike the hierophantic bestowal of official scientific advice, common sense doesn’t provide political cover if things go wrong. Furthermore, it tends to lend itself to the local and experimental. It requires epistemic humility on the part of our leaders — a willingness to admit what we don’t know and to own up to failure.
Unfortunately, our culture of politics, which systematically centralises decision-making — works in the opposite direction. Influence is exerted and reputations are made through the enacting of bold, confident, top-down solutions. Which is why the narrowness of the official expert advice that informs those plans is a feature not a bug of system.
*
But we can’t blame it all on our politicians. The resistance to mask-wearing is also cultural.
A lot of this is entirely understandable. To conceal one’s face in public — or cause someone else to do so — is a powerful statement. The controversy surrounding the Niqab and the Burqa is testament to that.
Face masks impede communication. Indeed that is one of the things that makes them effective — given what we know about how loud talking spreads the virus. The easing of lockdown will remobilise the economy, but with masks-for-all how we look and sound to one another will be transformed. Public spaces will fill with people again, but they will be weirdly silent, their smiles (and scowls) hidden away. It will, in its way, be more disconcerting than the deserted streets of deep lockdown — a cityscape of crowds without hubbub, faces without expression.
But it wouldn’t be forever. Indeed, as a price for accelerating the eradication of the epidemic — and for preventing an economically ruinous second wave — it is surely worth paying.
So, what’s stopping government from giving the order? Perhaps because the stakes are so high. If you think of most of the other things we’ve been universally required to do, there’s always been a bit of wiggle room. Unless you’re a public figure like Neil Ferguson or Dominic Cummings, the anonymity of modern life allows people to occasionally bend or break the rules with a low chance of detection, let alone punishment. Outside of our immediate circles, we don’t know who’s been washing their hands, keeping their distance or self-isolating should they need to. Masks, though, are different. Someone is either wearing one or they’re not. Both compliance and non-compliance would be immediately visible. Which is why a masks-for-all policy is such a high-profile test of a government’s authority (and, competence, should not enough masks he made available).
The visibility of non-compliance is also what so sticks in the craw of civil libertarians — especially those who imagine their liberties to be ancient ones. I say “imagine”, but in some ways, they’re absolutely right. Our ancestors were allowed to do all sorts of things that we are not. At one time it was the right of every freeborn Englishman to throw the contents of his chamber pot out the window. He could spit in the street and no one cared. He could bait animals for ‘sport’, build a house without planning permission and, in later eras, drive a car without a licence… or being sober. Even in my own lifetime, one could still legally drive without a seatbelt, smoke on public transport or, in certain circumstances, beat a child with a weapon.
The history of civilisation is the history of regulation — the accumulation of rules that we are all expected to abide by for the common good. For all these impositions, we are not only safer, but fundamentally freer and happier too. Not that we admit it, of course. We seem to think that our comparatively carefree world is the result of us being able to do as we please, when in fact the opposite is true.
Mandatory mask-wearing would be a further catch-all imposition. Indeed, that may be the most effective thing about it — the fact that it encompasses everyone, including super-spreaders. Personally, I’d be happy if masking-up while sick with a cold or the flu became a permanent norm, but the priority right now is killing off Covid without killing the economy. For most of us, wearing a mask would be a temporary inconvenience for a lasting victory.
Main Edition
US
FR
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIf you knew anything about Asian culture and masks you would know that they are worn only for politeness as they think it is rude to cough or sneeze openly in public. It does not protect the wearer but those around them. This is the same in the medical establishment, masks do not protect the surgeon, it protects the patients wound from saliva, coughing etc.. Masks become moist quickly, prevent good intake of oxygen and inhalation of carbon dioxide increases as that is what we breath out. All for a virus that has killed less than flu.
We know wearking a cloth or surgical mask protects the wearer more than those around them, that isn’t a reason not to wear it (unless you are only concerned with your own wellbeing and no-one else’s).
That must be why all those surgeons doing long surgeries are keeling over.
The virus is deadlier than flu: https://www.healthline.com/…
Any opinion on this? https://www.oralhealthgroup…
Thankyou Nigel, I read similar before I made my original comment, Anne
Surgical masks were not invented, nor are they worn to protect the wearer. If this were true, the military would wear them in the event of biological or gas attack.
The only effective protective mask is one which is tight-fitting and air-tight, covers the whole face and eyes, has bio-filters.
Reduced oxygen and carbon dioxide build up reduces mental and physical abilities and lowers effectiveness of immune system and increases fatigue. Maybe surgeons should not be wearing them. Controlled trials have shown there is no difference to infections during procedures where masks were worn versus not worn.
Mask wearing was established prior to antibiotics and other aseptic techniques.
We must have thousands of NBC (Nuclear,Chemical, Bacteriological) masks in storage somewhere?
I wonder if the MoD can find them?
Speaking from experience they are very effective, especially against CS Gas, extremely sinister in appearance and uncomfortable to wear for long periods. However as you rightly say, they are the gold standard and nothing but the best will do, whatever the cost Mr Franklin? You may ‘borrow’ mine on application.
I agree. As I have said, they worn to protect others, just as people are currently being asked to wear them to protect others against the novel coronavirus.
You’d have to show evidence that this affects people wearing surgical masks, otherwise that’s a true but irrelevant statement.
The article argues that mask wearing probably reduces transmission to some degree (though not as much as proper PPE), and that it is minimally disruptive compared to the other lockdown measures. That means it’s worth a go. People who resist govt interventions of any kind like to talk up CO2 rebreathing, but in fact they should support mask wearing if it allows the other, more disruptive, measures to be relaxed.
They have? Which ones? Why are surgeons still wearing them?
Again, this is not a reason to stop doing it.
What I find odd is that in Hong Kong you see many wearing masks, but others hawking and spitting in the street. So not everyone is polite, or cares about germ transmission
If there were an end-date I would be down with masks. Indefinite mask wearing, like indefinite distancing, is pure dystopia. Franklin talks about “eradicating covid,” but that was never the goal. We have to learn to live with this virus. Let’s protect vulnerable groups without destroying everything that makes life worth living.
If there were an end-date, or exit strategy, it would force policy-makers to crystallise their rationale. In doing so, I expect they’d arrive at the conclusion that infectious disease is a continuous threat and so there’s no logical beginning or end; either we should wear them, or we should not (I’d much rather not, thanks).
Of course if covid19 were an existential threat like Ebola, then it would make sense to treat it exceptionally. It is not.
I’m horrified that you don’t even mention that someone with severe hearing loss needs to see lip movements in order to understand speech. At present I am barely able to follow conversation at 2m distance. If everyone wore masks I would have no conversation at all. This does not mean I am against the wearing of masks if necessary, but it does invalidate your sub-heading.
I have reasonable hearing for my age,< but realise that I rely on lip reading like a lot of others to reinforce what I hear. This is noticeable with strangers who voice I don’t know the rhythm of. This plus the screens and distance.
Gosh! So Polly Toynbee advocates wearing masks does she? Well that’s one good reason why not to do so. Also, instead pf rubbishing him, I suggest that Peter Franklin studies Toby Young’s Lockdown Sceptics blog a little more deeply. Oh, and Franklin forgot to mention that our criminal establishment supports the compulsory wearing of masks unreservedly.
Polly Toynbee indeed. Who on earth in their right mind, would listen to that woman? (is she in fact a woman under the new Woke code of ethics?).
She and her antecedents have been serial abusers of this country for the last century. The damage they have caused has only been exceeded by that of the revolting Eric Hobsbawm and the elder Miliband.
If you wish to quote an authority Mr Franklin, you must do better than this.
With the instance of virus in London down to about 0.1%, the measure is essentially superfluous. Just one more control on the people, if implemented.
Like donating pots and pans and iron railings in WWII supposedly to make steel for the ‘war effort’… mountains of it found rusting in fields post-war. Britain had no shortage of coal and iron ore to make steel.
Which seems to be the ultimate goal David.
It has occurred to me that by wearing masks we may all end up with weak immune systems because we won’t encounter those viruses and bacteria and develop resistance. I find that particularly worrying for children.
I’d love to know if that fear I have has any basis. For example, those in the Far East who seem to wear masks all the time, do they have weaker immune systems as a result? Maybe that’s why so many nasty viruses seem to come from there of late?
And I can’t believe wearing masks won’t affect the well-being of the wearer if worn all day every day over a prolonged period. It simply cannot be right to be breathing back some of the CO2 you have just breathed out, nor can it be any good breathing back the viruses and bacteria you have just breathed, sneezed or coughed out. There is a reason we sneeze and cough!
It would be nice to hear from one of those surgeons that masks up for hours on end.
Your arguments are sound, and I would agree with mask-wearing in the circumstances outlined by the WHO, i.e. where distancing is no longer possible. However, I dread authority gold-plating that to mandate their use whenever we are out.
I dread this because I am single (not by choice), grieving for my mother, who died just before this started, and living in her house, in a town which was not my home before I came to care for her. The smiles of strangers across the street or when out walking (safely distanced) have been my lifeline during this lockdown. I’m sure I’m not the only one whose mental health would suffer immensely were we to be cut off from visual communication with other humans. I haven’t touched a living soul for three months now – cutting me off from the rest of humanity would be the last straw.
And for those who think I am indulging in hysterical nonsense and fighting a straw man, I now see a lot of American friends posting “Just wear your damned mask”, and a lot of facile comparisons with strangers peeing on you (which I get – but that rightly falls apart when the hypothetical pee-sprayer is a safe distance from you). They wear a mask all the time when out, their argument being of the better-safe-than-sorry, I am protecting everyone by always doing this, variety.
Which is a rather long-winded way of saying that should the requirement be universal, there are indeed downsides to wearing masks. I only talked about the physically lonely since that’s my experience, but I have a deaf friend whom this would impact greatly, and can imagine that the dehumanising aspect of not being able to read others’ faces would sour the socialisation process in some children, for example.
TL:DR Yes to masks where distancing is not possible, but please resist the temptation to extend the requirement.
Thank you for an interesting article and a persuasive argument; I was glad that you avoided some of the moralising that usually goes in to articles calling for mandatory face coverings. I would still say that I wont be rushing to advocate for mandatory face coverings though, nor signing any of the petitions on line from those who seem to think their fellow citizens in the UK should be so bound.
I think one of the big problems here is the obligation that we are being asked to adhere to –
even in the face of the potential damage it causes to us; the perceptions of those around us (including our children – encouraged to think of themselves/their friends/their environment as toxic) etc versus the negligible impact it has on viral spread. In order to enforce this obligation you will be saying to people – at the most extreme end – ‘You either comply or you are under effective house arrest’ (assuming face coverings are mandatory in any public space – including outdoors).
This is an extreme and unusual law to pass, and the fact that it can be met with just a simple cloth covering misses the point. It is true that this is a relatively low cost measure – psychological harm to a generation rendered terrified of their environment aside. It is also less harmful than lockdowns. However, most people who are against face coverings would have tried to prevent lockdowns as well if they could; why adopt another extreme method of micro-managing peoples behaviour just because its not as bad?
The article also states that we accept much regulation in the name of the freedoms we all enjoy. However, these regulations usually relate to something that isn’t integral to being alive. For instance, we accept we can not drink and drive – because the wherewithal to travel at 60 miles per hour and damage someone who we collide with is not integral to being human but something we can do because of our technology – therefore, if you want to play with new toy ‘x’ you can’t keep up bad habit ‘y’.
The exposure of our immune systems to their environment and the unencumbered exposure of our nasal and oral passages to the air we breath is not a privilege brought about by modern living but a part of being alive. To disrupt it requires a level of evidence for it’s benefit that just doesn’t exist.
If you wish to stir in a bit of conspiracy you could be forgiven for thinking that they purposely want us to degrade our immune system with masks and over sterilisation of the hands and surfaces so that we become dependent on lifelong isolation.
‘ In fact, when researchers did observe they found that, if anything, the effect was in the other direction, i.e. mask-wearers taking more care than non-wearers.’
No, no, no… logical fallacy. Post hoc ergo proper hoc.
One could just as easily observe that people who are most likely to take more care, will include mask-wearing as part of that ‘more care’.
That is the problem of using correlation to prove causality, without external data to corroborate it.
Unfortunately, the wearing of masks is now irrevocably linked to those who would use the virus and subsequent lockdown to further their own political ambitions. They have become weapons in a cultural war between those who would tell others what to think and do, and those who just want to be left alone to live their lives.
It didn’t help that those who insisted on draconian lockdown rules were the first to break them in order to destroy cultural artifacts and burn down homes and businesses. When we see our leaders ‘taking a knee’ while wearing masks we cannot help but see this as signs of craven and cowardly submission to an elite who would use mob rule and the media to ‘warn’ their citizenry what will happen if they don’t behave and vote the ‘correct’ way.
You’re asking ordinary British people (think of the characters in Shameless, say) to wear a cloth in contact with their faces continuously. Unlike you, they won’t have a well-stocked dispenser in a spotless bathroom, but will instead wear the same bargain-basement (probably carcinogenic) filthy rag on their face for a week, constantly fiddling with it as the contact dermatitis builds up and dried mucus and spittle blocks the pores. They will then smear their fingers over the groceries in the Co-Op. Or worse, they won’t have one with them, and to avoid being turned away from the shop will pick up one of the hundreds of discarded ones blowing around on the street. It is a foul, disgusting thing you are proposing to force people to do. You may be the perfect mask wearer, but many other people won’t be. Some may even be caused genuine distress by it.
“The coronavirus is spread through what are delicately termed ‘respiratory droplets’.”
Then why the hand-washing and sanitisation of surfaces?
It is claimed it is spread via large droplets, but no evidence to exclude fine droplets: masks provide a barrier to the former not the latter.
Surgical masks become waterlogged and lose effectiveness after 15 to 20 minutes. They become sources of infection either from virus collected inside the mask, or virus landed on the outside… particularly when touched.
Infected individuals who cough and sneeze will force droplets out around the mask, or through it.
“It’s a long-established feature of 21st century life in a number of East Asian countries where masks are commonly used as protection against infectious disease.”
And no evidence that doing so makes spread of respiratory diseases any lower than in non-mask wearing Countries. Wuhan for example.
There has been no controlled, comparative study where viral spread has been monitored in mask-wearing cohort and non-mask wearing cohort.
There is no empirical evidence that mask wearing prevents source spread or infection.
Anyway. Single barrier is all that is required. If A is wearing a mask, B need not.
Anyone worried of catching an infection, wear a mask, then others don’t have to.
Heroes are people who run into burning buildings to rescue people, or charge an enemy machine gun post, not individuals with snotty noses, or for that matter people doing the job they are paid to do. Personally I’d rather catch pneumonia and die than walk around with a mask on all day.
Does that mask also protect against lightning (a greater threat than Covid to the little boy)? Alas it won’t protect him from his coronanist parents.
As a user of a whole range of PPE throughout my engineering career it is a constant source of entertainment currently to watch how the general public handle the simple equipment they have been advised to wear. In many cases their behaviours not just reduce the benefits but in some increase the risk beyond the level of not using any in the first place. Masks removed and plopped on the dashboard while driving, or handing your ppe to your partner who has been waiting quite safely in the car uptill that point; and of course don’t forget about rubbing your nose and eyes with your latex gloved hands.
We are already in the midst of an allergy crisis that seems constrained only to the 1st world, I cannot see how forcing everyone to filter their air will help us in the long run. I do completely agree that the vulnerable should have access to everything they need to protect themselves if they choose to, as well as for public facing workers; again if they so choose it. But I am completely against further regulation and have found the ease with which the British public have taken to the ‘brown shirt’ mindset very worrying. Given our history I think we are cut from much weaker cloth than our forebears.
I thought everyone knew that the main reason why the Government was reluctant to require the wearing of masks was that there weren’t any masks.
If you can infect someone by breathing the same air, why didn’t everyone on the Diamond Princess get infected?
Oh god not this again!
Masks are completely useless at prevent the spread of viral infection even in a clinical setting every single properly carried out and controlled study until May this year got the same result. yes know some data trawling and badly designed studies have found that they do work on this virus but if they worked on this virus they would work on colds and flu. The Japanese do not suffer with less colds or flu than we do.
Masks don’t work.
Not even a little bit.
True East Asian countries have been virtually unaffected by this virus all East Asian countries regardless of mask wearing, government action, relative poverty or quality of health care. it is almost as if they have a natural immunity which means they are unaffected. I any sane world people would asking why they have a natural immunity rather than randomly picking on some government action and say it MUST be that or that or the other.
Mask wearing is just a way to force the proles to show obedience to Big Brother
So decades (if not a century or more) of research that show how various masks work, their effectiveness and their shortcomings is all nonsense due to the “impeccable” ;-/ research just prior to governments wanting mandatory mask wearing. Honestly I really fear for people who are so gullible they fall for this.
About a week or so ago a WHO spokeswoman described the research done into asymptomatic transmission of Covid and it was very low, practically zero…….however 24hrs later she had to reign back that statement and instead state that the 40% modelled transmission is what we should be “going with”. It was a cringeworthy presentation because the woman was clearly struggling to mislead.
“Heroes” are not people who follows orders, heroes are those who stand up to incorrect orders to uphold the truth.
There is a whole protocol for health staff surrounding the wearing of masks. You probably would say it is useless…
Looking at how people handle mask wearing it becomes quickly obvious that none of this rules is followed despite the fact that videos with recommendations, similarly to proper hand-washing instructions, have been around for months.
The evidence is just not strong enough to force everybody to wear masks, which leads to this complying with little conviction.
And personally I would add with little real benefit.
Moreover there is a problem which is little discussed in the whole attempt to instill fear into the people: when do we end all this?
That does not only concern mask wearing, of course.
Mankind behaves as if our acts would beat the virus and of course we all wish for this to happen and continue dreaming of an effective vaccine, hopefully one that will prove better than the flu vaccine.
What if it is not the case? Will we be wearing masks forever?
‘ There is a whole protocol for health staff surrounding the wearing of masks.’
In a hospital setting where staff have close contact with an infected patient, then as part of gown, cap, gloves, eye shields, it is effective in protecting staff. In a general setting is has little value since there are multiple infection routes, and complete PPE protocols cannot be used.
You are as well to wear a clove of garlic and a crucifix.
When governments show as much willingness to reorganise society in order to meaningfully respond to major existential threats facing us (like, for example, no country on the planet managing to live within planetary boundaries), I might be able to get over my cynnicism about the level of threat posed by Covid 19
What a myopic view, that there are no downsides to wearing masks. What about our smiles, expressions of concern, amusement, surprise, sadness”such expressed beauty? We need these things, from each other’s faces. We need them for our own peace”they make us whole.
Mask zealots should read the background to this crowdfunding campaign:
End the mandatory wearing of face masks for travel
“. Hi, I’m Jen, autistic. I can’t stand my face being covered and find it an intolerable sensation….”
And it goes on.
If there were no downsides to wearing masks, evolution would have provided us with fibrous flaps over our mouths and noses.
There is a potential downside of wearing masks. Some people who would
otherwise stay at home when they have symptoms mistakenly get the belief
that the masks provide a significant amount of protection — i.e. if
they wear a mask there is little or no chance of people being infected
by them. So they stop isolating, and go out when sick. Now, if you live somewhere where
people aren’t isolating *anyway*, this concern may be moot.
In some countries covering the face in public is unlawful (Austria springs to mind) and is certainly associated with criminal behaviour. I won’t be wearing one, any more than I would have a tattoo or a piercing.
At work if we use masks we have to dispose of them as clinical waste, whereas in society I see them left in shopping trollies and discarded on the ground. We have no way of know if people have caught Covid-19 from mishandling a mask when removing it.
We’re at the stage now in the UK where the chance of meeting a case is getting rather small (1 in 1700 ?) so I’m ok with the unmasked risk and don’t fancy reducing it a few percent. The Govt says you can go on public transport if you must, and where a mask to mitigate the risk of that silly idea. I’ll pass on that, too.
I can’t wear a mask I get claustrophobic. I hyperventilate, I get nausea, and I get a feeling like I am drowning. So it’s alright you saying we all must wear masks, but we are all individuals, not a homogeneous heard. So If the government did make it compulsory, I would have to stay in my flat, won’t be able to go out for food or exercise. My cats will starve and so will I. I live on my own with no friends and family. So what am I supposed to do,just sit in my flat and just watch as myself and my cats slowly starve to death. I can’t afford the home delivery charges that supermarkets charge .So if mask wearing became compulsive I am not going to die from the virus, I am going to die from the advice given about the virus.
“We seem to think that our comparatively carefree world is the result of us being able to do as we please, when in fact the opposite is true.” Would you like to rephrase this sentence?
That aside you are right about masks – I live in Singapore where mask wearing is mandatory in most circumstances. This is part of what has allowed a partial reopening of the economy and there is increasing evidence that masks are one of the most effective means of controlling transmission of the virus. It is a drag but it’s better than the alternatives. Wearing masks, like washing hands and other measures, is a numbers game and progress is subject to majority adherence to these incremental measures.
At what point do you think it will be sensible to stop requiring people to wear masks?
I don’t know Arthur. When the R number remains below 1 for a defined period of time? 6 months? There is such sizeable proportion of the world’s population (especially in the UK?) who seem scared witless it’s almost beside the point how effective mask wearing is so long as it reassures them enough to let us get back to work before we’re all totally screwed.
Never.
There is a potential downside of wearing masks. Some people who would otherwise stay at home when they have symptoms mistakenly get the belief that the masks provide a significant amount of protection — i.e. if they wear a mask there is little or no chance of people being infected by them. So they stop isolating. Now, if you live somewhere where people are going to work *anyway*, this concern may be moot.
Maybe the virus is declining because that’s what virus infections do in populations! If they didn’t we would all be dead!
Masks have been given the thumbs-up from the focus groups and so has quarantine . So that’s we we are having them . The government is fighting the opinion polls – not a virus.
Overall the virus is a hoax because it is over-rated and the cure is worse than the disease. It is a psyop to gain control of the public.
https://www.bitchute.com/vi…
Great article, interesting and to the point however I’m bemused as to why after penning this your profile picture is sans mask?
https://www.spectator.co.uk…
An excellent article. It complements this article by Michael Brendan Dougherty on the cultural issues of wearing masks from back in March: https://www.nationalreview….
So the WHO changed its advice? On what evidence? Has any serious testing been done anywhere? Can the WHO be trusted? Absolutely not! People with short memories should revisit the evidence for the fake “swine flu” (H1N1) pandemic-that-wasn’t (only possible because the WHO had changed the definition of a ‘pandemic’ to exclude high mortality) which cost countries around the world an estimated $18 billion – except for Poland, whose astute health minister refused to activate the vaccine contracts, saving her country millions.
They should also look into the Baxter Pharma scandal in which deadly live bird flu vaccine was (supposedly ‘accidentally’ – except that such accidents don’t occur in high-level biosafety labs) mixed into the H1N1 vaccine and only discovered by what people used to call “the grace of God”, when a Czech lab worker charged with multiplying doses was inspired to test some of the vaccine on some of his ferrets – which promptly died.
All suppressed and covered up by the WHO and national governments, which are quite comfortable with squandering public money in order to keep the vaccine makers happy.
What we’re seeing is a global case of Pavlovian response conditioning. Instead of being told that viruses are actually essential to human health (their main task is to ‘eat up’ dead cells – hundreds of millions of them every day!) and that they become problematic only when our immune systems are weakened – mainly by avoidable abuse in the form of indulgence in tobacco, alcohol, poor quality food, excessive sugar consumption, lack of exercise, and modern medicine (including vaccines: an American study showed a 36% greater risk of contracting Covid if a person has had the annual flu jab) etc.
Why are governments not rolling out major ‘healthy living’ programmes (Finland did this more than 20 years ago, resulting in a major drop in levels of illness)? Do they actually want publics that are in poor health and thus dependent on pharmaceuticals – including especially vaccines?
Apart from the lack of convincing evidence that masks save lives, it seems to me that wearing one is symbol of craven obedience to an authority (government) which in our pseudo-democracies has zero legitimacy. In Switzerland – one of the very few real (though still far from perfect) democracies in the world – the electorate was able to challenge the government’s revised pandemic law in a referendum (in 2013), so people were able to see fairly precisely what would happen. Interestingly, the new draft law was published in 2010 and it already included – in English! – the term “social distancing”. 60% of the voters (less than half of the electorate) approved the new procedures.
Compare that with the UK, when an obviously pre-planned set of draconian provisions was imposed virtually from one day to the next, with no possibility of a public challenge or input. I suppose that’s what we have deserved by caring too little about real democracy – giving up the birthright for a mess of pottage … (or worse).
It is a matter of numbers, as in the case of herd immunity. If a sufficient percentage of people wear a mask, the propagation of virus-bearing droplets (pace Toby Young) will be curtailed enough to reduce the spread significantly. One can put numbers there – based on the average size of droplets, the speed of emission when talking o coughing or sneezing, and the viral load. Masks have to be worn when close enough to other people, not all the time. Here people wear them in shops and on public transport – and have done so since *before* the government ordered a lockdown. So far, low number of cases and deaths, and hardly any complaints. These masks are worn routinely in parts of Asia, and it doesn’t seem to me that people there have been significantly de-humanised because of that.
“given what we know about how loud talking spreads the virus”. I’ve not seen the results of this research. What volume and what impact on the R value? Or is this more of your common sense?
“….in a number of East Asian countries where masks are commonly used as protection against infectious disease and air pollution.” Air pollution, yes, Infectious diseases, only worn by those showing symptoms.
There is evidence (comparing R values in the UK, Germany and Sweden) that lockdown measures have not been effective.
I agree that there may not be much to lose by forcing everyone to wear masks on public transport; but as there is nothing to gain, what is the point? If you are shedding virus you probably have it on your hands as you fumble for your mask as you enter a tube station. You then proceed to smear it onto everything you touch, which then contaminates others.
Perhaps hand sanitising points would be more effective? Dyson air-blade style UV hand sanitisers, anyone?
There is no “new normal”. There is only abnormal. When the high street businesses are all closed, the internet giants will tell us it is safe to go out again.
At least we won’t have to wait for a taxi driver for the next 10 years. Not that there will be anywhere worth going by taxi.
When did anyon take seriously anything Polly Toynbee, Tom Harwood or any other “commentator” said? Just the same as the rest of us but given a platform to push the current fad. Didn’t hear much about about universal masks six weeks ago Peter. Feel free to wear one.
“If there was a systemic downside of wearing masks, wouldn’t we have noticed it by now?”
No, because there are many factors influencing the spread of the virus and we haven’t carried out a controlled experiment with masks.
Regarding the point of there being no downsides to wearing masks – I disagree. Other commentators have raised the point of people who are hard of hearing needing to see lip movements. My son is autistic and autistic people generally get unsettled when faces are hidden (especially the part of the face which masks cover, as they generally dislike direct eye contact). Just because there’s no downside for you does not mean there’s not downsides for others or society in general. Like other commenters have said this does not mean we should not wear masks, but that any article dealing with the point should take these things into account and balance them against the benefits.
All a farce seeing that the whole virus thing is a psyop, a hoax, because the disease is rare. Most positive results are dubious.
Children and many adults rely on visual information of seeing your mouth as you speak to assist auditory processing. The masks might produce a generation needing speech pathology. Communication is alienated by the masks. There are numerous people complaining about the headaches and sleepiness they feel and the loss of identity. Masks are pretty germ riddled and the cloth versions are too thin to do much but make a political statement. The recurrent visual image is of the Handmaidens wearing masks.
https://www.naturalblaze.co…
As long as people aren’t packed in together, such as in a protest, the risk of transmission outside is very low. People only have to wear masks inside; sitting in a beer garden is different.
I don’t think asking people to put their masks on when they go into a shop is a really big thing to ask. You don’t need to wear one in the park.
With all the COVID measures there is a spectrum, with dystopian weirdness at one end and common sense measures at the other. For a lot of us, compulsory mask-wearing feels uncomfortably close to the weird end. Once you swallow that it feels as though the next thing will be having to wear an implanted microchip, or have a barcode on the back of your neck.
Sadly, I think everything from the lockdown onwards has been too far towards the weird dystopian end for me to feel comfortable with, so it’s been rather a bleak time!
Where are the mouth sprays! Masks are great and all but people need to sanitize their mouths. Check out companies that start making mouth spray products – it will be a big deal.
Jesus, as much as I am for free speech, this BS mask propaganda has to STOP.
How much longer the people are going to continue to let this totalitarian regime push this narrative down their throat?
“Protecting others”? Really? Do you really think a piece of cloth can protect you from the “virus”? Japan wears them all the time, however there is NO drop in influenza cases because of it. The major reason why Japan is wearing masks is because a vast majority of Japanese suffer of hay fever, pollen is hundred thousand times bigger than viri, but even then the Japanese in the pollen season are going around drowning in the own snot.
Another reason is that Japanese society has a mania for “privacy”, not showing their face and true feelings, hence the popularity of masks that are erasing the individuality and hiding the emotions.
Last, but not least, masks are really popular with women who are too tired, lazy or in a hurry to put makeup.
Absolutely right. More recent research only backs up what was obvious from a very early stage. See this article from 23 March, when the UK went into lockdown:
https://slatestarcodex.com/…
I really do not know what universe people like Anne Morris on this thread inhabit, but it seems to be one that puts a misplaced libertarianism ahead of pragmatism that would save lives and allow us to get out of the current mess faster. As for the government and the WHO, I despair.
Michael, I inhabit ‘The FREE world’
Peter’s article mentions a lot of examples where our freedom is curtailed for a wider public benefit. Unless you are a completely doctrinaire libertarian, the argument then becomes one about whether the loss of a specific liberty – in this case, to use public transport and go in enclosed public buildings without wearing a face covering/mask – has enough compensating benefits, in terms of reducing the impact of the virus, such as deaths, serious illness and other restrictions on our liberties. As the numbers of infected starts to fall, the case for compulsory masks obviously reduces. I’m also not saying they should be mandatory in private or when walking in open public spaces. But to say that their use would be unacceptable in any circumstances is, frankly, both selfish and mad.
Why did you not campaign for face coverings during the previous umpteen influenza and other epidemics? All of which cause fatalities.
If you think the current virus is really just like the annual flu round, I think you’re wrong.
Sorry Michael, the only thing I can say to you is thoroughly read the research on the use of face masks for dental work and face masks for surgery, I did this before I commented
The research from Germany, which is specific to the virus, strikes me as more convincing. https://www.iza.org/publica…
I have seen the summary I think you have in mind – there is a link further down this thread – and looking into a couple of the key sources that are cited – sources 5 and 11 – it struck me that the main article was pretty selective with the evidence. For example, source 5 is cited like this: “In the same year Dr. R. MacIntyre noted that randomized controlled trials of facemasks failed to prove their efficacy.” But source 5 actually says: “Several randomised clinical trials of facemasks have been conducted in community and healthcare settings, using widely varying interventions, including mixed interventions (such as masks and handwashing), and diverse outcomes. Of the nine trials of facemasks identified in community settings, in all but one, facemasks were used for respiratory protection of well people. They found that facemasks and facemasks plus hand hygiene may prevent infection in community settings, subject to early use and compliance.”
Except it has not saved lives, merely been a choice of which lives would be saved. People with life threatening diseases like cancer and cardiovascular conditions have had treatments and diagnostic procedures cancelled to free up resources for the still-awaited Tsunami of Covid victims. . Others have been too afraid to seek medical attention and have died.
Elderly people were evicted from hospital wards to free up beds, and sent into care homes carrying the virus. People in care homes with non-Covid conditions were denied medical attendance or transfer to hospital and died.
So far there have been 12 000 excess deaths in the UK non-Covid related. Many more will follow because of lack of medical care and economic problems.
‘Misplaced libertarianism ahead of pragmatism that would have saved lives.’ Surrendering to Germany in 1940 would have fulfilled that requirement and saved the 390 000 military personnel who died, and the 67 000 civilian deaths.
They died for that liberty that apparently is not worth their lives.
You’re missing the point. The link is specifically about wearing coverings/masks and the article I am applauding is about wearing these on public transport, in shops etc. I was not commenting on the principle of the lockdown at all, which is what your reply is about. Your point about 1940 is also completely beside the point. As Peter’s article mentioned, there are many restrictions on our freedom and I doubt that anyone in 1940 was fighting Nazism because they wanted a Britain with no laws or restrictions at all. Or perhaps I missed that bit when I studied history.
Your penultimate sentence is ludicrous. Did you really study history? Astonishing.
Maybe you can tell me what’s so astonishing about it? As a general rule, when someone mentions the Nazis in a thread like this, it’s time to stand well back, not join in to support them.
John Bowman’s point was perfectly valid and your facetious remark was uncalled for. You should control your passion during these troubling times, do you not agree?
“It” in the context of this article is mask wearing, which has not been mandated in the UK until recently. You seem to have taken it as an opportunity to talk about lockdown in general. If masks work, you should support them over other lockdown measures, as they enable people to get on with their lives rather than staying at home.
On the more general point about lockdown, I assume the 12 000 figure comes from the ONS. The ONS says (report here) that: some of those 12 900 excess deaths are undiagnosed covid19, some are indeed because people are not getting the care they needed (asthma and diabetes are mentioned, I guess it’s too soon to know about cancer and cardiovascular conditions), and that we won’t know the full details until later.
The modelling actually underestimated the number of deaths which would result if we had the lockdown conditions we did have, and estimated up to 250 000 deaths without a lockdown. Based on that, I don’t see any evidence that lockdown will kill the same number of people than not locking down would have, although it undoubtedly has killed people. Of course, the mismanagment of care homes wasn’t a pre-requisite of lockdown, it was a failure of management and government.
Well actually this was a mess we never needed to be in in the first place. Quarantine the sick (like we have always done), isolate the vulnerable (DO NOT DECANT THEM FROM HOSPITAL TO CARE HOMES DUH!!) and let the 96% of the population who are unaffected and whose immune system can cope get on with “life”. All virus infections rise, peak and then fall. Our immune system works by being exposed to bacteria and viruses, masks reduce that exposure.
By the way the article you referenced contains the magical phrase “may help and contain a pandemic”. So more speculation. Guess what we actually have a pandemic every year (with more worldwide deaths) but we mustn’t mention what it is………