UNIVERSAL mask-wearing in public places has the potential to make a major contribution to reducing the spread of Covid-19. The pros and cons of mask-wearing have received increasing attention over the last few days.
It is important to make a distinction between two ways that masks can function: individual protection, and reduction of population-level disease transmission.
As a form of individual protection, a mask does little to protect the wearer from virus particles being transmitted by other people. The WHO guidance that argues against public use of masks is solely based on this perspective.
READ MORE: Through all the misinformation, what is the truth of wearing face masks?
However, at the perspective of the population as a whole, the picture is quite different. At the present time we need to assume that any of us may be infectious, whether or not we have symptoms. If everyone wears a mask, it hugely reduces the amount of infected droplets released in the breath of each person who is infected. It functions to hold the infection inside the personal space of each individual.
The point of wearing a mask is not to protect me from you, but to protect you from me. When this happens, the rate of infection transmission falls to a level at which testing, tracking and innoculation can get it completely under control. This is not only common sense, but is also backed up by research, and the recent experience of countries such as South Korea.
Adoption of such a policy in Scotland would make everyone more confident of returning to normal life following the gradual lifting of the lockdown. The logistics and cost of making masks available to the whole population is not an insurmountable factor. If South Korea did it, so can we. Effective masks for everyday use can be made at home. Sewing repair shops across the country could be designated as essential services. If the NHS can come up with a design specification, I am sure that, between us, we can fairly quickly get to a point where wearing a mask in public becomes a new cultural norm.
John McLeod
Dundee
Scotland is in lockdown. Shops are closing and newspaper sales are falling fast. It’s no exaggeration to say that the future of The National is at stake. Please consider supporting us through this with a digital subscription from just £2 for 2 months by following this link: www.thenational.scot/subscribe. Thanks – and stay safe.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel