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.
Jenny Harries is a particularly evil, callous and stupid person, that’s why she was selected for the role.
She also looks very unwell.
Hopefully terminal.
This is an excellent, very rational summary of the ineffectiveness and harms of masks, which the vast majority of people agree with, otherwise more people would be wearing masks, but hardly anyone does, nobody I know, even vaguely know, only the odd stranger in the street or on a bus, in Belfast where I live. Even people with persistent coughs in social situations don’t wear a mask, and nobody backs off. If masks worked in healthcare settings, they’d work elsewhere, in social situations, and nobody wants Covid or flu, so if masks reduced the likelihood of getting Covid or flu, people would voluntarily wear masks. People vote with their feet.
Imagine a building with scaffold around it. Now imagine throwing a pile of snooker balls at the scaffold. Some may hit the poles and not pass through, but most will.– A bit like masks I suspect.
I can certainly imagine building the scaffold, but I wouldn’t be throwing snooker balls at it.
Try looking up the word “analogy” in your dictionary.
My analogy has always been: try stopping a river with a garden sieve.
wink
My understanding is that virus sizes range from 0.1 to 1 micron in diameter with the median size being 0.56 microns; surgical mask hole size is about 5 microns. Thus surgical mask holes are about 10 times the size of the thing that they’re supposed to stop. Are these figures correct?
I think so. The virus sizes quoted are in the right range. The standard surgical ones are just about useful to stop respiratory droplets. That is, they can protect open wounds against the odd cough and spit, and that’s about it. Remember that the junk sold to the public were deliberately referred to as “face covers”, so that the term “mask” was not used, and the relevant BSI standards (BSI Guide 0520 etc) were not applicable. Thus they sales organisations could not be dealt with under trading standards etc.
Very well said, Dr Sidley
As for you, Prof. Harries, no doubt you have a good lawyer. You’re going to need one:
‘Prolonged use of N95 and surgical masks by healthcare professionals during COVID-19 has caused adverse effects such as headaches, rash, acne, skin breakdown, and impaired cognition in the majority of those surveyed. ‘
Adverse Effects of Prolonged Mask Use among Healthcare Professionals,Elisheva Rosner, MSN, RN-C, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of New York-Presbyterian, USA
The great British public are no doubt really looking forward to being operated on by surgeons suffering from ‘impaired cognition’
My understanding is that surgeons wear masks to avoid spittle and (much larger than viruses) bacteria, and that theatres’ oxygen levels are raised to compensate for the mask’s CO2 barrier. Is that correct?
I spent all morning at my local general hospital on Tuesday, and not one member of staff I saw was wearing a mask, just a handful of (mentally) vulnerable patients. However at my local chemist the jabbers were in, all wearing masks, touting for business because they had no customers. Even at the doctors surgery the Covid screens have come down around the Reception desk in this past month and no masks were to be seen. I think the message is getting through, at long last.
Finally, finally, my local Co-Op has taken down the Perspex screens at the tills.
Masks never really were about health.
Now, they are solely about saving face for those useful idiots who peddled the health line.
I recently, apropos of nothing, had an invitation from my NHS trust to attend for a screening appointment, which the letter said quite unironically was ‘free’. And then came the demand in bold, underlined, shouty text that I wear a face covering on the premises while attending for the procedure. I wrote back and explained that everything the NHS does has to be paid for by the taxpayer and that I would not wear a facemask. I haven’t heard back from them.
Print this out and take it with you if needed.
And this reinforces the point
https://brownstone.org/articles/studies-and-articles-on-mask-ineffectiveness-and-harms/
Follow “the science” as we are constantly told to do
I feel for those who have been so thoroughly gaslit that they’re still terrified of normality, but I note that many of those continuing to wear masks in public (several spotted yesterday, on one of the brightest and sunniest mornings for a long time) appear, if eye contact is made, pretty defiant, as though their toxic, spittle covered bit of supermarket thermoplastic polymer and unhealthy virtue signalling indicates some sort of moral superiority. Can’t get my head around it.
I have seen people driving in their car alone wearing them. —–Beyond absurd
A bigger issue: Masks impede communication, which can cause medical errors, a leading cause of iatrogenic injury and death.
Turning a bug into a feature, the ULEZ operators seem to value having their faces covered, as do the more energetic Hamas protesters. Each to his own I suppose.
I thought that was one of the conclusions about rhinoviruses made by the Common Cold Unit decades ago. The 1960’s?
It all boils down to the likelihood that a medical appointment with an NHS trust imposing a mask requirement, is not worth attending. If they have faith in face coverings they will probably have you swallowing mercury along with the brimstone and treacle as they drill a hole in your head.
In summary, medical guidance must be objective, therefore consistent across the board, *NOT* subjective, i.e. decided locally on a whim.
Harries’ and the govt and overall health authorities’ problem, is that politically they cannot be seen to do a ‘U’ turn. Problem is, if they don’t do that now, it is still inevitable as reality is fundamentally out of their control and ALWAYS wins over rhetoric.
They’re starting the fearmongering up again in South Australia, see:
COVID: Some South Australian hospitals reintroduce face mask mandates
They are desperate to get people in masks otherwise people forget Covid…
Also, a family member had gratuitous ‘Covid’ testing when in hospital for another matter recently, so being tested without symptoms. How much of this is going on, wasting money on unnecessary testing, probably with the plan to build up ‘positive case’ numbers to justify the ‘PHEIC’ ‘pandemic’ that keeps rolling on every year?
Is this racket continuing to be played out in every country?