Using coverings is about acting in the best interests of the public

I never understood why the Government was so slow to insist we use face coverings when it was such an obvious precaution to promote, even though at the outset the data was patchy.

Who knows what traumas could have been avoided subsequently if they been a bit more pragmatic? But the debate continues and there is still a vocal lobby that sees the recent moves by the supermarkets as an infringement of civil liberties and/or some form of discrimination. Well it’s not.

Civil liberties are fine, but they don’t extend to entitling anyone to inflict harm on anyone else. Nor do they allow anyone (say a doctor) to give permission (say to someone who is unable to wear any form of face covering) to risk harming anyone else – they just don’t have this authority.

They may be best placed to decide what is best for you, but not for everyone else. We’ve always expected shops to refuse entry to customers that will harm others and that is all they are doing now.

The aim is not to single out individuals and labelling them “unclean”, it’s about acting in the best interest of the public as a whole and to that extent, they have no choice other than to do exactly what they have done - not ideal for everyone, but in the circumstances they have no other responsible option.

Remember, nobody can guarantee they are not infected, even if they have been vaccinated, so we need to get this sorted as there’s still a fair way to go with bringing infection rates under long-term control.

L White (Mrs)