Why it is wrong to wear face masks in England
Why it is wrong to wear face masks in England – including in shops – and a defence to use when being charged with not paying a fine for not wearing one in a shop
In essence, the use of masks is unnecessary and a completely unjustified and overall negative measure.
1) There is no proof of there being a new virus
And even if there was:-
2) There is no proof that human-human transmission is a factor in an epidemic
And even if there was:-
3) There is no reasonable evidence of face coverings being any other than a non-effective gimmick associated only with ‘peace of mind’
4) Stopping the virus is irrelevant now as the peak has gone – the epidemic has burnt out evidenced by reduction of excess deaths to below average. Note that burn-out percentage has been estimated at 10 – 20% NOT 60-70%, 80% of people naturally immune etc.
5) Overall in terms of public health, wearing a covering goes against the natural world and natural biological health processes and will cause more ill-health than is designed to prevent.
6) The whole thing is unnatural and a violation of human rights
7) In regard the Sweden model, if lockdown didn’t really help, face masks even less necessary.
8) On all accounts the lethality of the COVID-19 is no worse than flu and can be managed.
9) There is absolutely no evidence that a second wave is imminent and we are still in the summer. It is essential – as Sweden and others – to get the ‘herd immunity’ going BY NOT SPECIFICALLY TRYING TO CONTROL THE UNCONTROLLABLE.
10) Given it is reported the idea is to protect others and not yourself, I don’t have an illness to spread (and if I did I would take appropriate and normal precautions) and in any case there is no scientific evidence for asymptomatic spread (even if there was a virus)
11) There is no sensible exit strategy since the fact is (on the assumption there is a CV) these viruses will always exist in the community much a colds or flu.
12) The measure is clearly designed to propagate fear when this is totally unnecessary and would appear to be a means to continue oppression to ensure vaccine take up is the only exit whereas from all of the above, this is unnecessary.
13) This national approach goes against the declared approach of using local measures. So the measure will be regarded as completely disproportionate in some areas.
14) The measure will DETER shoppers, not encourage them. If the government had access to behavioural scientists they should have indicated this. Thus, the measure will further, unnecessarily weaken the economy and not have the desired effect. Part of the reason why there are less shoppers now is obvious – partly fear, partly habit (having not shopped normally for months), partly not wishing to partake of a glum experience peppered with 2m waiting lines, hand sanitisers and being ordered about, online shopping and in large part probably because people stand to be unemployed in large numbers – THERE IS A RECESSION!
At the outset, the Government admitted YOU CANNOT CONTROL a virus (i.e. you cannot stop its ultimate spread amongst the population), the declared purpose of the lockdown was to flatten a peak – which has already occurred. All measures after this are irrelevant pussy-footing around. With an R0 of 2 – 4, this thing, having been around since Dec 2019, has run its course. Even if there was a future uptick across the country it cannot be as bad as the first due to the effective and proven herd effect. therefore there will be no strain on the NHS outside of capacity, not least there are many proven ways to treat all types of cases.
Lastly, the decision was more based on media push for a decision to ‘follow suit with others inc Scotland’ – why is this necessary since we are devolved? Surely Scotland should have followed UK not the other way around.
Neil
And another opinion