On the streets of Hong Kong, the maximum penalty for not wearing a face covering in public can be one year in prison or a fine of $25,000 (£2,600). More than 50 countries have imposed mandatory face-covering rules. Even in neighbouring France, in Paris, a compulsory face-mask rule has come into force. Yet, amid the UK’s tightened covid-related restrictions, one can still find people walking the streets of London with no face covering.
Unlike the first lockdown in March, more people are seen on the streets. Lockdown compliance has subsided. Under such circumstances, government sources claim that strengthening public compliance will require issuing more fines. Furthermore, despite a more intense lockdown, the UK hospitalisation rate continues to surge and the healthcare sector is struggling to cope. Tighter restrictions are now under consideration that encompass school closures and that narrow the definition of “stay at home.”
What are we to make of the proposed restrictions?
Although individualism is a mainstay of western political thought, perhaps containing the virus requires a blanket mandatory face-covering rule. Conceptually, there is no difference between “stay-at-home” restrictions, school and hospitality closures, and mandatory face-coverings. Such restrictions all impose an authority that infringes on individual liberty. The UK government has repeatedly affirmed its reluctance to impose infringements of this very sort. Yet introducing the rule could serve as the most efficient approach to curb infection rates.
First, there is evidence that masks are an effective measure in suppressing transmissions and saving lives. To that end, the WHO argues that masks should be worn in crowded settings. A study published in Infectious Disease Modelling finds that mask use is useful for both preventing illness in healthy persons and preventing asymptomatic transmission. Furthermore, under hypothetical mask adoption scenarios, an 80% adoption of effective masks could reduce mortality by 24-65% and peak deaths of 15-69%. Although cultural, social, political, and other factors play a role in shaping differences in infection rates between countries, wearing a mask is nonetheless proven to contain the virus.
Second, relative to other restrictions under consideration by the government, the mask-wearing rule could deliver the greatest public value given the fewest infringements on individual liberty and economic prosperity. Hong Kong, for instance, has managed to keep restaurants open amidst the pandemic. Other Asian countries, where the level of enforcement, public will, and individual compliance is high, have managed to keep sectors open and infection rates low relative to Western countries. Perhaps differences in systematic and political abilities in imposing rules may pose greater challenges for the UK to balance between political need and the infringement of individualism, and in implementing a mandatory mask-wearing rule. Nevertheless, other Western countries, such as neighbouring France and Italy, have successfully imposed such regulations. Thus, we can learn lessons from countries where rules are strict and compliance is high, as well as Western countries that have successfully implemented mandatory mask-wearing rules.
Although a mandatory mask-wearing rule is not a panacea, it has the potential to limit the spread of the virus and reinvigorate economy prosperity. Mandatory mask-wearing rules are by no means simple, but they are rational.
This article gives the views of the authors, and not the position of the Social Policy Blog, nor of the London School of Economics.
