I'm too distressed to wear a mask because every argument for doing so is absolutely terrible!

There is one particular exemption to mandatory face nappies that is as wide-ranging as you want to make it. That is that the wearing of masks causes one severe distress. As a society, we could effectively end the compulsory muzzling tomorrow, before it is even extended to all indoor spaces.

Yet unfortunately, the fact that the exemptions exist is not well known and in any case people find it hard to take a stand, but take one they must.

Anti-maskers have, for too long, chosen the path of mockery and insults. We are the awake and enlightened people, whilst the masses are conformist sheep or ‘sheeple.’

Perhaps this is true of some genuine muzzle enthusiasts, who greet every development of this kind with unabashed delight, or who live in such utter terror that their critical thinking faculties have gone out of the window if they ever existed.

However, other zealots simply enjoy this most visible manifestation of virtue. They who consider the world not through the prism of contesting ideas but by considering people like them as good and the rest as bad, now have a visible badge in the form of a face nappy. They wear theirs with pride and revel in attacking those who don’t do the same.

However, I think the majority are simply doing what they are told, or doing it out of respect even if they don’t really believe in it. Perhaps some kindness is in order, and some questioning along these lines.

How has the science moved on?

When people assert that the science has moved on, ask them for evidence. It hasn’t. We know from a News Night exposé that in fact the World Health Organisation, whose uselessness and incompetence cannot be described in terms suitable for a blog written for polite society, changed its advice following political lobbying.

Look at what our own experts have actually said all along about masks. The evidence is week. They give people false confidence. They have only been shown to be effective in clinical settings, not the community – and in those clinical settings, medical grade equipment is used, not leaky face nappies.

Laboratory trials may well be able to show the effectiveness of different materials in preventing the escape of droplets, but we can deduce nothing from any experiments void of any human interaction with the muzzle.

The muzzle militia has nothing but ifs and maybes. Sure, you may well feel that it’s worth doing because you’re prepared to believe anything until someone proves you wrong, but is that a sound basis for restricting my freedom to choose not to do likewise or to wait until someone makes a credible case?

The science is the same, the politics is changed.

It’s about being respectful of others

This is a popular one. Just do it for the sake of others! Or as the trending hash tag puts it “Wear a damn mask!”

Except of course that perpetuating superstitious nonsense is not respectful at all. The South African president once said AIDS could be prevented by taking a shower. I’ve read that honey can cure cancer. Would it be more respectful to promote such ideas to make people feel better, or to give hard truths?

Masks serve one purpose: they make people feel less afraid. But surely the sensible thing is to look at how much or little reason they actually have to be afraid? Surely the kinder thing is to encourage someone to see things differently if they are more fearful than they need to be?

And you do not, whatever you think, normally put up with absolutely anything to be respectful of others. You put people at higher risk if you drive your car than if you don’t. You might kill them. Are you therefore going to stop driving out of respect? That’s the order of magnitude even if we do accept the most supportive case for masks.

Oh and whilst on the subject of cars, can we please stop the comparisons with seatbelts and drink-driving? Seatbelts impose no restrictions on your movement, communication or comfort. The effects of alcohol on concentration and cognitive functioning are well known. In either case, if the worst happens the survival rates for those in the crossfire of your bad choices will be much lower than the 99.7% survival rate for Coronavirus. Stupid comparisons! End of!

What is next?

When do people think the wearing of masks should end? Do they think there will be further such intrusive impositions and what will they do about it? Are they willing to accept absolutely anything for a world where we at least think that we are absolutely safe?

The lockdown was meant to be for 3 weeks. It was just a mask, just on transport. Those reassurances held up well didn’t they?

Have you forgotten that you are well?

The constant stream of new restrictions and impositions seems to ignore the basic fact that, if we are out and about, we are well.

Ah, but what about asymptomatic disease? We still have no idea how many people are free of symptoms. It’s another thing that quickly went from a suspicion to gospel overnight, so now we are all to believe that we are permanent walking biohazards. Little wonder the muzzle militia are so bloody miserable!

And yet the asymptomatic argument fails both ways. If asymptomatic disease is really common, then why are we even worried about this virus? The best option would be to let all but the most vulnerable carry on as normal and take no steps to prevent getting it, thus building up the population immunity and allowing a faster exit from restrictions for those at highest risk.

If it’s rare, and most transmission arises from having prolonged contact with people, then surely nearly everyone is going to know that they have recently been exposed. Indeed, they will probably be undertaking a fortnight’s isolation anyway. And we love testing so they could surely just report symptoms to secure a test anyway.

Finally, since the main benefit of masks is supposedly to prevent the escape of droplets, the case for their effectiveness is one based on the person displaying symptoms, for the large droplets are expelled through coughing and sneezing.

Masks do no harm

And yet, despite us constantly being told that it’s no imposition to wear a mask, there are many exemptions including the frankly catch-all but rather helpful “severe distress.” Obnoxious muzzle zealots point out that wearing a mask does not reduce oxygen saturations, as sanctimoniously demonstrated by this snotweasel doctor – a paid medical influencer.

Yet why is this alone sufficient to win the argument? That is to discount as nothing all the discomfort people feel; everyone who finds it too hot; everyone who finds it hard to breathe; everyone who is made anxious by being muzzled like a dog; everyone who struggles to speak or hear the mangled voices gasping underneath; everyone now worried that they will be shamed and harassed wherever they go.

Wearing masks is an experience. I thought we were all about caring how people actually felt?

Summing up

Everyone should refuse to wear a mask. Everyone should find it too distressing to be told that they have to. Everyone should worry what kind of a society we are creating when the sight of a smile and the many stories written on a human face cease to matter because we need to become robots robbed of any individuality and forced to believe that we are constantly sick and a menace to each other.

So sorry, but I’m too distressed to wear a mask because every argument for doing so is absolutely terrible!