In light of some hospitals reimposing mask ‘mandates’, Dr. Gary Sidley has written on behalf of the Smile Free campaign to UKHSA Chief Executive Jenny Harries highlighting the discrepancy between UKHSA’s guidance, which allows for masking, and its literature review, which concedes the evidence for the practice is very poor.
Dear Professor Harries
In light of a few NHS Trusts recently re-imposing mask ‘requirements’, I write this open letter to clarify the UKHSA’s position regarding the wearing of face coverings by staff, patients and visitors in healthcare settings. In particular, would you kindly explain the discrepancy between your current guidance, which, while broadly recommending a return to pre-pandemic normality, continues to allow re-imposition of masks where there is a local appetite for it, and your recent literature review, which concluded the evidence for masks reducing viral transmission was, at best, very weak.
It is apparent that NHS leaders are using your department’s advisory documents to justify the actions of those hospitals that have reinstated mask mandates. In a recent response to our open letter to NHS chief executives signed by over 2,500 U.K. doctors, scientists and medical professionals asking why they are condoning the return of masks, Dame Ruth May (the lead for infection control at NHS England) attempts to justify the actions of these healthcare outliers by citing two documents:
- Your UKHSA guidance titled ‘COVID-19: information and advice for health and care professionals‘;
- A ‘Letter to the NHS’ from NHS England that provides advice on how to interpret your guidance.
Based on the content of these two papers, Dame Ruth is able to resort to the ‘matter-for-local-discretion’ argument to condone the mass-masking re-impositions taking place in a minority of healthcare settings. The scientific evidence pointing to the ineffectiveness of masks as a viral barrier, together with the range of harms associated with them, renders this response inadequate – and bordering on irresponsible – as it perpetuates a postcode lottery where patients in some localities have to endure a sub-optimal service because of the actions of a few mono-focused local infection-control personnel.
It has long been recognised that masks achieve no appreciable reduction in the transmission of respiratory viruses. We knew this in 2015-16 with regard to surgeons and their patients (here and here). We knew this in 2020 from a gold-standard Cochrane review, an analysis of 14 studies on influenza and a healthcare investigation that concluded that masks “may paradoxically lead to more transmissions”. Indeed, in March 2020, you correctly acknowledged this position when you stated that masks “are really not a good idea”. The amount of robust evidence pointing to the ineffectiveness of face coverings has expanded since this time, culminating in the 2023 Cochrane review and the testimony of Dr. Ashley Croft (Consultant Public Health Physician and Medical Epidemiologist) at Scotland’s Covid Inquiry. Furthermore, a study in April this year concluded that mask requirements in a London hospital made “no discernible difference” to Covid transmission rates. And now your own UKHSA guidance acknowledges that the evidence of the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (including masks) is “weak” and “would be graded as low or very low certainty”.
But I am sure you would agree that health is about much more than avoiding one virus.
Routine masking, particularly for long periods of time, is increasingly recognised to be associated with a wide range of physical, psychological and social harms (see here for an overview). And a recent research study highlighted the potential risks of elevated carbon dioxide levels associated with long-term mask wear, particularly for children, adolescents and pregnant mothers.
While the scientific evidence is important, it is the human costs of routine masking in healthcare settings that forcefully bring home the dire consequences of this irrational practice: the exclusion of the hard-of-hearing; the re-traumatising of the historically abused; the increased risk of falls in the elderly; the exacerbation of confusion in the already confused; the aggravation of the autistic, anxious and panic-prone; the marginalisation of already stigmatised groups; and the impediment to the goal of soothing the frightened child or suicidal teenager. Faceless interactions impede the development of healing relationships. Humane healthcare, delivered with demonstrable warmth and compassion, will always be more effective than the robotic version emitted by a faceless professional hidden behind a veneer of sterility.
Based on the above, I would respectfully ask that it is time to immediately update UKHSA guidance so as to:
- Acknowledge the ineffectiveness of masks as a viral barrier;
- Explicitly recognise the range of harms associated with the masking of staff, patients and visitors in healthcare settings;
- Actively discourage the routine wearing of masks in all clinical areas.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and consider the issues raised. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.
Dr. Gary Sidley is a retired NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist and co-founder of the Smile Free campaign.
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.
The politics of energy austerity will soon get very ugly…
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/politics-downstream-of-energy
“…The expansion of energy and wealth can lead to complacency and we collectively forget what it was that allowed us to create the most prosperous society the world has ever known. Bad ideas like Malthusianism flourish and luxury beliefs that undermine the very principles on which society was built begin to take over.”
And the parasites gorge off this folly.
Great article. DV does not like to be crossed, even with his own balance sheet. I hope Ticeman and the gang make life impossible for him in Lincolnshire.
If Lincolnshire succeed, others will follow.
Richard Tice has thrown down the gauntlet and Reform have to pick up the fight swiftly. Putting a stop to the destruction of Lincolnshire, the vegetable garden of England, would provide a massive boost to the anti nut zero movement and be a powerful message to Kneel’s mob.
Nutard zero has nothing to do with tender Gaia and a lot to do with money, kickbacks and wealth accretion. I personally saw this in action at a (very hastily) implemented solar panel ‘farm’ which desecrated rich farmland. I have on record civil servants telling me about the kickbacks of those involved. I talked to landowners basically forced to sell or else. The entire process was rush-rush, the fake consultations etc etc. If you had wanted to build a factory, it would have taken many years to get the requisite sign offs. Not so with the solar farms. It is all a fraud.
Dale Vince doesn’t look like someone you want to share a pint with down the pub.
Well he is a vegan.
This comment has been deleted
Talking of ignorant twats, Jim Dale is another who makes the false claim that oil and receive subsidies as opposed to a reduction in their taxation theft. Mind you the ideology of the Far Left is that everything you own belongs to the state in the first place. Looking ahead, the EU is introducing a second level Emissions Trading Scheme – ETS2 – that will absolutely hammer the people as unlike the existing ETS on industry this one will be on everyday living. 2027 will be an interesting year if the EU proceed with ETS2.
The Jim Dale I remember was funny 😂 . “Carry On” 😉
The Oil & Gas companies cannot claim tax relief on expenses in the same tax year as the revenue because the expenses accrue many years before the revenue appears, hence their different tax arrangements.
So is he saying here that he doesn’t want (or currently take) any subsidy payments in any form? – if so that’s great, we can switch them off right now, and he can continue to run his business (which will fold shortly afterwards)…
I wonder how much local government can stop national governments plans?
If they can, it will be a very interesting few years…
Step 1 is creating public awareness of the tragedy occurring.
Cornwall is blighted with wind turbines and agricultural land covered in solar panels and Reform has won more seats than any other party in the council. Unfortunately the other parties are vowing to work together and vote against them as a bloc. I doubt they can save the county from more ecologically damaging eyesores. Surely it’s the same position in every county?