Let’s face it, we should all wear masks

BACK on April 5, in an effort to add some constructive thoughts to the debate at the time on the subject of wearing face masks, I took the time and trouble to email both my experience and my concerns to Professor Chris Whitty, the Government’s Chief Medical Officer.

I never even received the courtesy of a reply, much less did I feel that my comments had at least been noted.

Now, three months later, scientists are now saying that everyone should wear a mask.

If they go out of the house, this will reduce the risk of the virus being spread by people breathing it in as well as people breathing it out, especially as they may not even know they have the virus if they don’t have any symptoms.

Prof Whitty, I hate to say I told you so, but most of what follows is exactly what I emailed to him three months ago.

Back in the mid-1970s (when Prof Whitty was still only aged 10) I spent two years in the United States as a Jesuit novice.

As part of our pastoral experiences, two of us were involved in social services supporting families attending a cancer research centre in Seattle where the process of bone marrow transplantation was being pioneered.

Once patients had had their immune system suppressed, the risk of infection was extremely high and so, apart from being in special rooms with outward flowing filtered air-condition systems, anyone entering their rooms was required to wear a face mask which had only recently been developed (similar to a dust mask and repurposed by 3M from the stiffening cups it made for bras) in order to further guard against any risk of transmitting infection from the wearer to the patient.

The effectiveness of those masks was further demonstrated when patients for whom the treatment had been successful travelled home afterwards (usually by plane to different parts of the United States and overseas), and were required to wear a mask as a safeguard against any risk of infection from other passengers.

The “experts” have continued to claim all along that face masks are not intended to protect the wearer, but rather to guard against the wearer infecting others.

But why not encourage everyone to wear one anyway on the basis that who knows who is infected and who isn’t?

Surely any barrier is better than no barrier at all – which is why we are used to seeing people in Asian countries wearing them as a barrier against breathing in air pollution, and it obviously works or they wouldn’t wear them.

I think it would be true to say that the type of masks we are talking about (the dust mask type, or the layered paper or cloth type as opposed to masks fitted with filters) can’t offer 100 per cent protection – especially if they are not fitted properly – and therefore people who wear them should still be cautious about the situation they are in, maintaining social distancing just the same.

But given that any barrier is better than no barrier, why is the Government promoting the wearing of masks only on public transport and in shops for example, rather than recommending that everyone wear them wherever they are (as other countries have done) so that as much protection as possible is provided against the virus being spread whether breathing it in or breathing it out?

We are already doing as much as we have been asked to do for our own good and to protect other people, but the one thing we are still not being told to do is for everyone to wear a face mask whenever we have to be out and about.

It can’t do any harm and could surely do a lot of good, and yet the Government persists with its policy of “face coverings are not intended to protect the wearer”. Why not if they could?

If everyone is wearing a face mask then there is no longer the same level of risk of anyone passing on the virus or of catching it.

Does the Government have to learn the hard way, just as it has regarding the failure to introduce a lockdown as early as it should have done, or its failure to give due regard to care home patients and staff?

Apparently, and sadly, yes it does. Indeed the Prime Minister has received, and appears to continue to receive, some appalling advice.

And who is his chief adviser and why is he still? Enough said.