A Responsibility to Protect: In support of mandatory face masks in shops

The announcement that face masks will become compulsory in England’s shops from 24th July, with the possibility of a £100 fine being dealt out to anyone who does not comply unless exempt, has renewed passionate argument around a debate normally found only after the UK has suffered from a terrorist attack: the preservation of civil liberties vs the intervention of the state. How far can a government go in imposing new restrictions on our daily lives in the name of protection during this pandemic? Some people believe that this is too controlling and that our leaders have overstepped the mark. They are the conspiracy theorists and the people who will now switch to online shopping or will lie about having a breathing problem to get around the new “draconian” measure. Others welcome this announcement with open arms, believing that it is has been a long time coming and that masks should have been compulsory in enclosed spaces before lockdown even began.

I am one of those who is certainly with the latter. Compulsory masks should have been implemented from the beginning of the UK’s fight with Coronavirus. I accept that a lack of knowledge on the nature of the virus, as well as the lack of evidence for the effectiveness of masks would have influenced government policy back in March, but I would also ask for forgiveness for believing that blame should also be placed at the government’s own feet for not having enough masks for them to be compulsory at the time. Let it be known through, that is not a criticism I am throwing at just the UK Government, but almost every government of the world. In 2015, Bill Gates gave a TED talk on the threat of a pandemic (one that I am sure has been discovered by many more people in recent months), in which he criticised the shortcomings of the response to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa as a ‘global failure’. With the benefit of hindsight, one could say he almost predicted the COVID-19 pandemic the global community is currently facing. We were not ready. So while we may be pushing for mandatory masks now, I am happy to confess my government’s initial failings in this area.

I am proud to say, as a key worker from my part-time job in a Waitrose branch, I have been wearing PPE for the vast majority of the pandemic, only not doing so when we ran out of stock in branch. Whether it be a face shield, face mask, gloves, or simply using hand sanitiser on a regular basis. This is because even while the evidence was small, growing, and in some places, even contradictory, I thought that wearing it would offer at least some protection to the people around me. Further studies conducted since have shown that, while they are not entirely effective on their own, masks do significantly lower the chance of spreading COVID-19 to other people. With the virus living in the droplets that we exhale when we breath, the University of Edinburgh foundthat all the tested face coverings, except those with a valve, reduced the forward distance of an exhaled breath by 90%, and thus the possibility of infecting those around you in this way. Considering as well that recent studies are finding that many infected are asymptomatic, and therefore can spread the disease without even knowing they are a carrier, it is extremely important that people wear masks in enclosed spaces, such as the very shops where we will soon be legally forced to do so.

However, the attitudes of many individuals towards wearing masks are exactly the reason why the government is right to introduce this measure. From speaking with my work colleagues, both my age and slightly younger, and fellow Conservatives, I know many who have refused to wear a mask despite the growing body of evidence in their favour, and will now only do so because the government is bringing this new rule into force. Some argue against it by saying that they feel uncomfortable; that they get hot and that it is difficult to breathe wearing a mask. Other more politically involved people such as I find their opposition in an ideological basis: whether they wear a mask or not is their choice. They, as an individual, should have the freedom to make that choice and the state should not be interfering as it is an infringement of their civil liberties.

Quite frankly, putting on a show of opposition towards wearing a mask where it has been advised to, at this point, comes across as an audacious show of selfishness. If it had been proven that wearing a mask protected the individual from catching Coronavirus, I would be more sympathetic to the libertarian argument of infringed freedoms. If it were a case of you deciding if you want to protect yourself from the infection, it would then be the individuals’ prerogative. However, it is the opposite that is the case. Masks have been proven to not protect the wearer, but instead those around you. It is thus, not about the individual, but the collective society. Why should one civilian be free to make a decision that could impact the lives of tens, even potentially hundreds, of people? Why should someone who could be asymptomatic be free to go without a mask in a confined space and risk infecting all of those around them, simply because they feel uncomfortable wearing one? The answer is they should not. As one of my conservative friends said, claiming that your freedoms are being infringed by being forced to wear a mask is the same as claiming your freedoms are being infringed by not being allowed to drink and drive. Given the suggestion that up to 80% of infections could be due to the actions of 10-15% of the population, the state must interfere against the stubborn who will not follow the advice, due to its primary responsibility to protect its citizens.

With SAGE warning about a potential second wave over the winter that could leave 120,000 dead, I know that I would much rather be ever so slightly uncomfortable wearing a mask at work, on the tube or wherever the government asks me, rather than wonder if I might be starting a chain of infection that could leave many people ill, bedridden or grieving from the death of a loved one. The government must protect its citizens and it is right to introduce this measure. I only hope that it will lead to a more accepting culture towards wearing masks amongst the population, while also keeping the stubborn from potentially hurting those around them.

Luke Stewart

"Face Mask" by shibuya246 is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0