While many of us complained that ‘Freedom Day’ was largely a non-event, for many it was obviously a step too far. Sometimes farmers open the gate to a field, in an attempt to move a herd of cattle or, probably more appropriately, sheep to another field and they don’t make a bolt for freedom. They bunch up together and refuse to move, preferring the safety of the familiar over the non-familiar. It is like that with face coverings, Boris Johnson unambiguously told the people of England that these were no longer a legal requirement after 19 July. But what do people do? They carry on wearing them. In fact, I am convinced as are other members of my family, that mask wearing—far from declining—is on the increase. And it also, visibly, seems more rather than less prominent out of doors. I must emphasise the unscientific nature of our data collection procedures. Nevertheless, it begs the question, why are people continuing to wear these offensive, useless and potentially harmful facial appendages at all?
We have clearly become conditioned. The psyops described so aptly by Laura Dodsworth in A State of Fear and based on the Institute for Government discussion document Mindspace have clearly worked. People have been terrified into a permanent state of fear and lulled, like the citizens of Oceania, into accepting the abnormal as normal. So much is this the case that the vast majority of people in supermarkets, continue to cover their faces, fog up their spectacles, recycle foul air and mumble to each other. Something none of them would ever have dreamed of doing in March 2020.
Take Waitrose this weekend in my hometown of Hull. Along with several other supermarkets Waitrose emphasised that there was no longer a legal requirement to wear face coverings, yet they continued to encourage it by both staff and customers. What do these retail experts in virology and epidemiology know that the UK Government do not know? Surely, we ought to be told. Far from being chastised, people are congratulating them. As one person said: ‘I visited Waitrose on ‘Freedom Day’ and didn’t need to worry about people not wearing masks’. Frankly, when I visited, I was more worried to see that people were still, almost without exception, wearing them. That said, apart from a few hand-sanitisers—another most likely useless device and symbol of our submission—all other signs of pandemic panic had gone. No signs outside or inside, no one-way system and no security guard enforcing rules. Strangely, people seemed to be taking full advantage of all that. The place was crowded, nobody was queuing to get in and trolleys were being wheeled in all directions. Some people were even entering by the exit and exiting by the entrance…chaos!
It is almost unfathomable why anyone would choose to wear a mask when there is no legal requirement to do so. I would not expect everyone to be on top of all the evidence regarding mask wearing; in other words the almost complete lack of evidence of effectiveness. But the sheer inconvenience, discomfort and reduction in verbal and non-verbal communication are surely reasons enough. However, when people like Tim Harford of the FT Weekend, a man I usually consider to be on the side of the angels, can say: ‘I think it is considerate to wear a mask, an act that evidence suggests may protect me, probably protects others and certainly reassures them. For most people, wearing a mask is only a minor annoyance, so why not do it?’ and: ‘Cabinet ministers have boasted about removing their masks as soon as possible, which feels like boasting about farting in a lift: it might be a relief but it’s a strange thing to advertise. Once one realises this is about signalling tribal loyalty, it makes more sense.’ Yes, indeed, ‘tribal loyalty’. That makes perfect sense.
Opinions from the Unity News Network (UNN) editorial team & various contributors. | UNN always clearly distinguishes between news and opinion pieces and as an open minded outlet we publish views from a variety of people and organisation that do not necessarily reflect the views of UNN or its writers. Articles published under UNN Opinions are always opinion pieces and if published on behalf of a contributor will contain that authors name at the start of the piece.
