According to Section 53 of the Adult Support & Protection (Scotland) Act 2007: “Harm includes all harmful conduct and in particular, includes, conduct which causes physical harm and conduct which causes psychological harm (for example: by causing fear, alarm or distress).”
On November 2nd 2022, the Daily Sceptic published my article which set out the steps leading to the removal of routine mask-wearing in social care settings in Scotland. The Daily Sceptic titled the article, “Scottish Government finally admits that mask-wearing is harmful.” The article has been shared thousands of times on social media, attracting the attention of fact-checkers who asserted that the Government did not deem masks were harmful. A Scottish Government spokesperson told fact-checkers at Reuters that the article was a “gross distortion of what the Government has said”. He or she also stated that the guidance was “relaxed in line with the latest clinical advice after a sharp drop in infections and a reduction of severity of illness”.
Clinical advice most likely played a part, but the guidance was updated on September 7th in direct response to the recommendations made at the round table meeting on August 16th, which I attended, where stakeholders met with key Government officials. Harms caused by mask-wearing to both users and providers of social care were clearly identified in a position statement which was shared with Government ministers in advance of the guidance being updated and published. We discussed and agreed on physical harms resulting from the detrimental impact of masks on quality of care and provision of person centred care, especially for those in the advanced stages of dementia. We also shared grave concerns in relation to psychological harms, mainly distress, caused to those with cognitive and sensory impairments.
In the introduction to the updated guidance and repeated in the guidance itself, Kevin Stewart, Minister for Mental Health and Wellbeing states: “The guidance balances the risk of harm from COVID-19 with the impact masks can have on communication, mental wellbeing and rights and choices of those working in and using social care services.” He goes on to say that removing the need for masks “will make communication and relationships easier in care settings, benefitting mental health and promoting the rights and choices of those working in and using social care”.
Mr. Stewart (and the guidance document) make reference to the risk of harm from Covid being balanced with the impact of masks on health, mental wellbeing and communication. Impact should be prefixed with ‘detrimental’ and therefore clearly identified as harm, consistent with the reference to harm from COVID-19. If masks are not causing harm, why would removing them benefit communication, health and mental wellbeing?
Recent updates to the guidance documents for both health and social care settings give increased attention to individual risk assessments for both users and providers of care, which equates to the recognition and necessary management of potential harms associated with mask-wearing.
Far from being “a gross distortion of what the Government said”, the claim that routine mask-wearing causes harm to both users and providers of social care services is acknowledged by the Scottish Government, as a direct result of our round table discussion with key Government officials and made perfectly clear in the guidance document.
We’re all working together to support and protect the most vulnerable people in our communities, which begs the question, why would a Government spokesperson support this fact check and seek to discredit the grounds for a welcome and long overdue policy decision that has protected thousands of individuals from unnecessary harm? Not to mention the insult to my personal integrity and professional credibility.
Valerie Nelson is an independent Mental Health Trainer and Consultant.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Get that disgusting face off my screen. Even half obscured, I want none of it!
Alba gu bràth
Yes there’s one person for whom wearing a mask reduces harm (to our eyes) regardless of anything else, and should be made mandatory forever.
In fact there’s an idea. Instead of a pandemic “amnesty” as proposed by Emily Oster, how about we have a truth commission that identifies all lockdown, mask and vaccine zealots. We can obviously jail the most egregious, and confiscate resources to help the vaccine injured, but we can’t jail all of them – there are too many.
Instead maybe they should have to wear a mask forever as a mark of penance. Like an electronic tag. Maybe one of those too so we can make sure there’s no cheating, with some kind of phone app. They seem fond of that kind of intrusive measure so I’m sure it’s not as bad for them as it sounds to us.
A bit like the hockey mask Hannibal Lecter wears but superglued on, with ‘Safe and Effective’ tattooed on their forehead?
Sounds a bit like the ending of Inglourious Barsterds.
Sophie, I think you’re onto something.
Amen to that!
LOL
A ghoulish sight, for sure.
One day I hope to god we get to the bottom of who – or which group of people – decided to make facemasks the crisis prop or brand of the covid plandemic, and trick the world into believing that they were needed.
That person, or group of people has committed in my opinion one of the most appalling crimes in the history of humanity. An environmental crime, an economic crime, a crime of psychological and physical harm. Truly in all senses of the term, a crime against humanity.
The sad reality is that the clinical face mask, as a crisis prop of this fraud, was probably chosen without much thought by a public relations company hired by one of the agencies or foundations behind the crime. It’s an example of the ‘banality of evil’ 😔
I don’t believe she ever revealed her source but the ex-BBC journalist Deborah Cohen, one of the few to come out of covid with any honour, found out that the relevant committee of the WHO had reversed their decision not to recommend masks under political pressure. I’m not on Twitter so I can’t easily find her original tweet but Hitchens mentions this here: PETER HITCHENS: Face masks turn us into voiceless submissives | Daily Mail Online
I remember reading this, yes. It certainly worked as a way to make Western populations behave more like their East Asian counterparts, in terms of obedience and collectivism. I believe this was an objective.
The belief that they did any good was for the birds. The author’s last statement: “Not to mention the insult to my personal integrity and professional credibility” is reasonably accurate – although many professionals were their own victims, as it were. Perhaps it demonstrates the vulnerable nature of specialism, but most with a decent education should realise that a lot of the junk used had no chance of preventing the transmission of such tiny compounds that they were worried about. In fact, almost all the junk sold to the general public did have tiny small font labels that just about said so, to avoid prosecution under trading standards. Almost no-one read them ( you need a magnifying lens for those labels).
The comment on East Asian counterparts reminds me of my view a couple of years ago that it was a copy-cat job by WHO, or whatever, as it has long been the culture on certain crush loaded public transport in Tokyo, and other places.
Indeed, masks are a universal symbol of submission the world over. In the USA at least, that was why men were far less likely to wear them voluntarily compared to women, and why the powers that be called such refusal to wear them “toxic masculinity”. If that is what constitutes “toxic masculinity”, then we need MORE of that, not less!
And if his political polar-opposite brother Christopher Hitchens were still alive today, that would probably be one of the very few things they could both agree upon.
It was the behavioural scientists of SPI-B including the luxury communist herself Michie, who decided that ‘the perceived level of threat’ needed to be ramped up. It was not done for medical reasons.
There was a pressure group called “Masks 4 All” based in the Czech Republic who influenced the WHO to do a complete volte-face on masks in June 2020. Whoever was behind that group, is what I would like to know.
The choice was made by the Nudge Unit, whose level of scientific knowledge was such that they believed you could stop flies passing through a chain link fence. Either that or they were in thrall to the evil witch Michie who saw them as a tool of compliance with the state.
She must have had a momentary lapse of memory, thinking she was living in China, her preferred location
Still waiting for any government to provide clear evidence that masks work.
Instead of “clinical advice”, how about just one reasonable piece of research.
And the Bangladesh study has been ripped to shreds despite what the mask-lovers say.
Indeed, the Bangladesh study has been laid waste, just like every other pro-mask study.
The politicians, behavioural psychologists and public ‘health’ ghouls who inflicted muzzles on us to better terrify the population can never admit they did harm for to do would imply liability at best and criminality at worst, let alone the end of their ill-begotten careers (hi Prof Michie!).
So they’ll continue to continue to tango with euphemisms to distract the credulous and bored. Those of us who nurture and refine our rage against people like Sturgeon, under whose malign and incompetent regime I have the misfortune to live, however, will continue to point out the inconsistencies in their slimy double speak until, one fine day, we can only hope, they’ll have nowhere else to go. Let’s hope that’s when widespread social revulsion and retribution kicks in.
Pessimistically, though, I suspect we’ll never get a full accounting from these criminals until they’re dead or long retired. F***ers.
Your last paragraph is so true. Unfortunately 🤬
Wee Jimmy Krankie needs a mask over the top half of her face as well.
A plastic bag over her head would be better
The Scottish Government & wearing masks are both harmful
Yellow Freedom Boards – next event
Monday 7th November 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction B3430 Nine Mile Ride &
New Wokingham Road,
Wokingham RG40 3BA
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
As I understand it, the only credibility and integrity that counts for anything in Scotland is that of their odious leader. And that would be because she has neither. She is truly a legend in her own lunchtime.
Hmmmm – I wonder if Ms Nelson – or a competent lawyer – could invoke the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act against the Scottish Govt, their spokesperson and/or Reuters for threatening and abusive behaviour and/or communicating same for this blatant denial? It remains an act of utmost cruelty and abuse to enforce masks on those who have issues with communication and this must be up there with the worst of other ‘hate speech’ (you know, like a woman calling herself a woman and being labelled transphobic). Just a thought.