• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

Proof That the NHS Was Just Making it Up On Face Masks

by Paul Stevens
15 May 2024 3:55 PM

For two years we’ve been told by senior NHS operatives that the responsibility for assessing the need for masks to be worn in health care settings has been ‘delegated’ to individual NHS Trusts. Decisions would be made based on the local prevalence of respiratory infections and their associated risks.

Work carried out by anti-mask campaign group, Smile Free, has found this to be a falsehood. NHS staff and service users continue to be subjected to the undocumented whims of unaccountable mask mavens; people who appear also to feel that legislation aimed at fostering a culture of openness in public life does not apply to them.

Ever since 2020, when the ‘health service’ portion of the Medical-Industrial Complex – a.k.a the NHS – and its co-collaborators, the Government, flip-flopped on the question of mask efficacy, we, the public, have been sold the sham that a piece of ill-fitting cloth can insulate us from a respiratory infection.

What we know, with absolute clarity and certainty, is that face masks serve only two possible purposes:

  • As a comforter and pacifier for the frightened;
  • As a means of creating compliance and conformity amongst those wearing them.

The entire schtick of mutual support and care, encapsulated in the psychological nudgers’ weasel words, “I wear mine to protect you”, is founded on a lie. As opposed to the nonsense espoused by Followers of The ScienceTM, real scientific evidence, found in real evidence-based research, has confirmed that the only contribution masks make is to increase harmful effects amongst long-term wearers.

What has the NHS’s institutional response to the facts been?

During these past three years, Smile Free has campaigned vigorously against masks. Twice, in the summers of 2022 and 2023, we wrote open letters to the NHS Chief Executives of the four home countries, co-signed by thousands of doctors, scientists, medical professionals and members of the public. We asked first that they fall into line with other community settings and remove routine ‘requirements’ for mask wearing, and latterly that they issue new guidance explicitly discouraging masking in healthcare settings.

When, or if, we received a reply, the message from the likes of NHS England’s Chief Nursing Officer, Dame Ruth May, was that masking and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were a matter of “local discretion” and may be used “depending on local prevalence and risk assessment”, a feature of the masking system we called the postcode lottery.

(‘Risk assessment’ – a decision-making tool for systematically identifying hazards and associated risks – is one component of an overall three-pronged risk analysis process, the others being ‘risk management’ and ‘risk communication’.)

Call us sceptical, but we harboured doubts about the objectivity of a bureaucratic process that relied on the overweening influence and power of Infection Control Teams. Often under the direction of a pettifogger, we suspected the activation of safety theatre that left thousands of staff and service users badgered to wear the useless face rags might lack the rigour we would have hoped for.

What did we do?

We decided to put the claims of the NHS ‘higher ups’ to the test: we set out to review measurement of local prevalence and assessment of risks arising from respiratory infections in general, and COVID-19 in particular. During the period between September 2023 and February 2024 we identified seven NHS Trusts (Barnsley, East Suffolk & North Essex, Sheffield, Sherwood Forest, South Warwickshire, United Lincolnshire, University Hospital Southampton) that had restarted the mandated wearing of masks across at least some of their estates.

These trusts were chosen because they decided – and announced – that COVID-19 infection levels were “soaring“, and because they think that masks “prevent further spread and protect patients“. (Why they think these things, we have no idea. We think there is zero evidence to support either assertion.)

Via Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, we raised with each trust these questions:

  1. Within the geographical boundaries covered or served by your trust, what were COVID-19 case numbers (per 100,000 people), by month, since October 2022 until the present day?
  2. What was the most recent date that these mask measures were subject to risk assessment and updated?
  3. What was the latest risk assessment document used to determine that it is necessary for you to reintroduce face masks?
  4. What were any and all risk assessments that have been used since March 2020 to determine that it is necessary for you to mandate the wearing of face masks?

What were the results of our FOIs?

All trusts failed to offer any statistics on community COVID-19 prevalence within their catchment service areas. Two, Southampton and South Warwickshire, were able to provide some data about COVID-19 rates amongst admitted patients; but not one collected, retained or even appeared to analyse case data from across their entire geographic field of operation. All (bar East Suffolk and North Essex, who flatly stated that “we do not have that data”) pointed at the UKHSA as holder of the information. None were able to show how they had used these actual numbers as part of a risk analysis process.

This prompts the question that if these trusts don’t record or analyse these numbers over time, how can they ever know whether COVID-19 prevalence is changing within their service area, or whether changes are suggesting increasing or decreasing health hazards and associated risks? How were they able to make any scientific decisions on mandating, or even just recommending, the wearing of face coverings as ‘protection’ against a respiratory infection?

Just as worrying is the reality that none of the trusts were able to provide evidence of formal documented risk assessments – let alone risk analysis processes – for all parts of their estates. (One, Barnsley, provided a risk assessment template that it said was used to “inform” discussions about mask wearing within its Emergency Department.)

Within this context, three FOI responses, from Southampton, Sheffield and South Warwickshire, are most illuminating, both for their candour and as a realistic representation of what has been happening across the NHS after the ‘top down’ mandates disappeared and were ‘replaced’ by local protocols in 2022.

Firstly, in answering the questions related to documented risk assessments, Southampton stated that these were:

Not held. Use of face masks would have been reviewed at meetings and we do not have a record of these.

Sheffield’s response followed the same form with its admission:

We do not have a formal risk assessment. However Covid prevalence is monitored by a trust-wide expert group who review and agree all actions required depending on the Covid prevalence level.

South Warwickshire went further and replied that:

Mask wearing was implemented in line with the national requirements to wear masks throughout the Covid pandemic, however we did step up to universal mask wearing approximately one week before it was mandated in April 2020. When the national universal masking requirement was stepped down, we did not then undertake formal risk assessments. Instead, local epidemiology, Covid incidence within the hospital, staff sickness and ward outbreaks are closely monitored and discussed each day at ‘Silver Command’. Masking is stepped up or down in line with this picture, erring on the side of caution. This continues to be reviewed on a regular basis at Silver Command. In addition, we have always supported mask wearing (either FRSM or FFP3) through personal choice.

The major takeaway from these responses is that the idea of formal local risk assessments being undertaken is a bogus one. Based only on a disproven axiom that ‘masks work’ and an unwillingness to acknowledge the real evidence about mask efficacy, there was:

  • No systematic risk analysis methodology applied;
  • No formal risk assessment carried out;
  • No evidence of formal risk management procedures;
  • No official documentation related to a risk analysis process created, stored and updated over time;
  • No consideration of scientific evidence on the comparative benefits and harms conferred by masks to their wearers.

Instead, what happened is that people who believe masking makes sense imposed – and continue to impose – their views on the rest of us. Why? Because they feel no need to ever re-evaluate or challenge their pseudo-religious beliefs; and because, in the words of South Warwickshire NHS Trust, they want to “err on the side of caution”.

But that’s not all, folks

As concerning as the lack of any rigorous, data-led, local measurement and evaluation of risk from respiratory infections might be, there is a second aspect of our work that is more worrying. And that is the seeming lack of respect exhibited by some NHS Trusts for the regulations that underpin the FOI legislative framework.

Of the seven trusts that we directed our FOIs towards, three (Sheffield, Sherwood Forest and United Lincolnshire) failed, by a considerable margin, to respond within the stipulated timeframe. The worst laggard was United Lincolnshire, which was overdue with its response by more than two months!

According to the law, an FOI response must be created within 20 business days. Despite numerous nudges of our own to these trusts, they failed to comply. In the end, in the form of formal complaints, we escalated these delinquencies to the Information Commissioners Office (the ICO) who then gave the trusts a final ‘10 day’ ultimatum to respond.

Why were they so late? We can guess, but we couldn’t possibly speculate. Suffice to say the excuses given were in essence a variety of the ‘dog ate my homework’ type. Intermediate responses cited problems locating the information and the difficulty of finding a suitable senior manager to sign-off the response.

Our conclusion

We began this exercise with the notion in our minds that, when it comes to face-masking, the NHS has spent the past four years simply making it up. We feel no different now, except that we’ve now got confirmation of this inkling.

Everything we’ve heard from these NHS Trusts speaks to an unchallenged over-reliance on models, non-existent data and a Pollyanna-like mentality where being seen to ‘do something’ is better than following the well-established Precautionary Principle and waiting until we understand and, even better, have evaluated properly the facts.

It seems to us to be a disgrace that the ‘national treasure’ which is the NHS can act in such a cavalier and unaccountable manner.

Paul Stevens is a member of Smile Free which campaigns for the end of mask mandates and masking.

Tags: Face maskMask MandateNHSPropagandaRisk-Benefit AnalysisThe Science

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

Celebrity Doctors Being Paid to Promote Vaccines is Against the Law

Next Post

Cochrane Founder Peter Gøtzsche: Healthcare is Much More Corrupt Than People Think

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

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.

29 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

Episode 36 of the Sceptic: Karl Williams on Starmer’s Phoney Immigration Crackdown, Dan Hitchens on the Assisted Suicide Bill and Tom Jones on Reform’s Local Council Challenge

by Richard Eldred
16 May 2025
0

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

Worldwide Embalmer Survey Reveals Striking Rise in White Fibrous Clots Following COVID-19 Vaccination

17 May 2025
by Will Jones

Were the Arson Attacks on Starmer’s Properties What the First Few Volleys in a Future Low-Grade Civil War Would Look Like?

17 May 2025
by Steven Tucker

News Round-Up

17 May 2025
by Will Jones

Trump’s Lesson in Remedial Education

16 May 2025
by Dr James Allan

Civil Servants Threaten to Strike Over Trans Ban in Women’s Lavatories

16 May 2025
by Will Jones

Were the Arson Attacks on Starmer’s Properties What the First Few Volleys in a Future Low-Grade Civil War Would Look Like?

21

Falklands War Landing Craft is Decorated for Pride

16

Worldwide Embalmer Survey Reveals Striking Rise in White Fibrous Clots Following COVID-19 Vaccination

14

UK Puts Chagos Islands Deal on Hold to Avoid “Toxic Backlash”

12

Why We Politicise Science

12
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Can Monkeys Teach Us About Fairness?

17 May 2025
by Noah Carl

Why We Politicise Science

17 May 2025
by James Alexander

Were the Arson Attacks on Starmer’s Properties What the First Few Volleys in a Future Low-Grade Civil War Would Look Like?

17 May 2025
by Steven Tucker

Trump’s Lesson in Remedial Education

16 May 2025
by Dr James Allan

Spy Agency Report on the Alleged “Extremism” of AfD Turns Out to Be So Stupid That it Destroys all Momentum for Banning the Party

16 May 2025
by Eugyppius

POSTS BY DATE

May 2024
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
« Apr   Jun »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

POSTS BY DATE

May 2024
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
« Apr   Jun »

DONATE

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

Worldwide Embalmer Survey Reveals Striking Rise in White Fibrous Clots Following COVID-19 Vaccination

17 May 2025
by Will Jones

Were the Arson Attacks on Starmer’s Properties What the First Few Volleys in a Future Low-Grade Civil War Would Look Like?

17 May 2025
by Steven Tucker

News Round-Up

17 May 2025
by Will Jones

Trump’s Lesson in Remedial Education

16 May 2025
by Dr James Allan

Civil Servants Threaten to Strike Over Trans Ban in Women’s Lavatories

16 May 2025
by Will Jones

Were the Arson Attacks on Starmer’s Properties What the First Few Volleys in a Future Low-Grade Civil War Would Look Like?

21

Falklands War Landing Craft is Decorated for Pride

16

Worldwide Embalmer Survey Reveals Striking Rise in White Fibrous Clots Following COVID-19 Vaccination

14

UK Puts Chagos Islands Deal on Hold to Avoid “Toxic Backlash”

12

Why We Politicise Science

12
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Can Monkeys Teach Us About Fairness?

17 May 2025
by Noah Carl

Why We Politicise Science

17 May 2025
by James Alexander

Were the Arson Attacks on Starmer’s Properties What the First Few Volleys in a Future Low-Grade Civil War Would Look Like?

17 May 2025
by Steven Tucker

Trump’s Lesson in Remedial Education

16 May 2025
by Dr James Allan

Spy Agency Report on the Alleged “Extremism” of AfD Turns Out to Be So Stupid That it Destroys all Momentum for Banning the Party

16 May 2025
by Eugyppius

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment
Perfecty
Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
Notifications preferences