The wearing of face masks in public spaces has lately become much more than simply a matter of public health protection. Indeed, recent months have seen a dramatic politicisation of the face mask, and the choice between wearing and not wearing a mask has become much more of a political statement and a demonstration of one’s political loyalties . In America, for example, conservatives keen to protect their personal freedoms have come to see mask use as a matter of individual choice, while liberals have argued for the mandatory public use of face masks, irrespective of privately-held opinions to the contrary. Many libertarian conservatives believe that any compulsion by the authorities to wear a face covering is not only wholly non-American but also actually unconstitutional. Lovers of “freedom” and upholders of “human rights” even go so far as to liken the face mask to a “medical device”, which individuals can choose to either use or to reject, depending on their personal viewpoints.
It isn’t just the politicisation of the mask that has become problematic. Even scientific opinion is by no means unanimous when it comes to the use of face coverings. These differences of opinion have translated into widely divergent national policies when it comes to mandating public mask wearing. This is partly because of the paucity of “hard” scientific data to support confirm the role of face coverings in preventing the transmission of the coronavirus. Furthermore, newly acquired scientific knowledge has continued to modify previously held opinions about the role and efficacy of face coverings, often at a pace that is frequently too fast to keep up with.
By the end of June 2020, the wearing of face masks or other improvised forms of non-medical cloth face coverings has become compulsory in at least 50 countries throughout the world. In several of these countries, non-compliance with mask wearing has been made punishable by on-the-spot fixed-penalty fines. In England, face coverings became mandatory on public transport (bus, train, ferry and plane) from 15 June onwards. Certain forms of transport were, however, excluded, including taxis and other private hire vehicles, as well as school buses. Some categories of people have been allowed to leave their faces uncovered, including children under the age of 11, those with disabilities or breathing difficulties, and those accompanying deaf people who rely on lip reading or other facial cues for communication. For those people exempted from wearing masks, transparent plastic hoods may, however, be considered a suitable alternative.
The English guidance on face covering has been backed up by several different scientific sources. For example, on 7 July 2020, the Royal Society (London) published an updated report titled “Report on Face Masks for the General Public-An Update”. While “accepting no legal liability for decisions made on this evidence”, the authors of the report recommend the wearing of face coverings in “all circumstances where physical distancing of more than 1 metre cannot be maintained, and no physical barriers exist, including in shops, office buildings, and public settings”. This recommendation is based on the view that face coverings prevent the onward transmission of Covid-19 by asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic people infected with the virus-the so-called “silent carriers”. Community transmission of the coronavirus, whether by smaller aerosols or by larger droplets, is now believed to occur not only on coughing and sneezing, but even while breathing, talking, shouting or singing. While viral transmission may not be completely prevented simply by covering the mouth and nose, the viral load of transmission, or numbers of viral particles being excreted appears to be significantly reduced. This fact is particularly relevant in low-income countries, where proper social distancing may be near-impossible to implement.
Even when face masks or other coverings are actually being worn, many examples of misuse can be seen. Some masks only cover the mouth, leaving the nostrils open to the elements. Other masks make their way to their wearers’ chins before settling there, or are worn on the forehead like a bandana. Some wearers regularly fondle their masks, contaminate their hands and then go on to handle other surfaces or objects in public spaces. Others wear their masks at best only intermittently and then rather infrequently. Some indiscriminately dispose of their masks on public benches or in the streets. All of this makes the wearing of masks more than just a simple binary choice between use or non-use. Masks should be worn correctly at all times to be of any benefit. In the absence of proper mask etiquette, covering the face can be considered at best to be nothing more a token gesture.
It is important to adhere to local policies and guidance wherever these are available. Citizens’ compliance with the wearing of face coverings, where recommended, must be regarded as a civic duty, one that is undertaken in a spirit of solidarity with one’s fellow citizens, rather than as a forcible imposition and a deprivation of civil liberties. While the benefits of compulsory face covering are by no means conclusively proven, some of the emerging evidence is compelling enough to encourage wider adoption of the practice.
Ashis Banerjee