I NOTE with interest Helen McArdle's Analysis article ("Opposition to face masks is predictable safety backlash", The Herald, July 16), where she says we've seen it all before "with everything from seatbelts to vaccines".
The rationale for this argument is false; there is no comparison in the scenarios. Seatbelts and vaccines are fully tested and usage policies are based on sound scientific evidence. However, the policy for mandatory usage of "cloth face masks/coverings" seems to be based on circumstantial assumptions, papers which have not been peer reviewed, but yet are quoted by the media as being factual and definite.
This issue appears to be a red herring in the Covid-19 fight and as Orwell said about Second World War gas masks, "simply a symbol of national solidarity". Only N95 respiratory masks are of any help in the prevention of respiratory disease, as Professor Jason Leitch correctly advised at the start of this crisis. The only thing that has changed is Prof Leitch's advice based on "some evidence". However, "some evidence" has not been circulated, and there is no consensus across the scientific or global community on this subject, due to the lack of evidence.
It's easier to support something when presented with actual evidence and that is the obvious issue here. To date there appears to be only one validated test, which is referenced in this current WHO guidance to healthcare and community workers of June 5: "In the context of severe medical mask shortage, face shields may be considered as an alternative. The use of cloth masks (referred to as fabric masks in this document) as an alternative to medical masks is not considered appropriate for protection of health workers based on limited available evidence. One study that evaluated the use of cloth masks in a health care facility found that health care workers using cotton cloth masks were at increased risk of influenza-like illness compared with those who wore medical masks."
However, the WHO advice for the public, issued on the same date, recommends that the public should wear them. Why? The WHO was forced by political interference to amend its advice. The WHO has not performed its duty from the start of this outbreak, and that is a huge issue. It's about time that the media took notice of these things and actually gained corroborative evidence instead of jumping on the bandwagon in these desperate times.
I believe this to be a political judgment, not a scientific one, done this to try to appear as if they are doing something, and provide some (false) confidence to the population. The Government would be better to be up front about it. I can understand the pressure politicians are under, but I would prefer if they actually "followed the science", rather than grasping at populist straws.
The only messages that practically matter are “distance, distance, distance”, and the critical one which is never mentioned, to get as physically fit as possible, and give yourself the best chance of fighting the terrible virus.
Mark Innes, Elgin.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel