We need support from the government, says Sussex professor

In a context where face-coverings have been mandated for a year, to drop that mandate sends a very strong signal. It signals that the situation with the pandemic is now much less serious.

With cases rising rapidly, hospitals under pressure and around a million people with long Covid, is this the message the government really wants to communicate?

Last year, when face coverings were made mandatory in the UK, the number of people wearing them was already on the rise. But immediately afterwards, adherence shot up to around 80 per cent. Making masks mandatory communicated the seriousness of the pandemic and the need for action.

The signalling effect seems to be more important than the coercive element. The police were relatively hands-off. For example, by January only about 1,000 people had been fined for not wearing face coverings. Indeed, coercion tends to be an ineffective approach in public health as it damages relations between the health authorities and the public.

There is some evidence from other countries that mandating face coverings can play a role in keeping us safe in the pandemic.

A survey of 92 regions around the world found while in some countries mandating made no difference (as wearing was already high) in others it led to a significant increase in public adherence. This suggests there are other factors that can make a difference in adherence to wearing masks.

Boris Johnson

In the UK case, we are simply “advised” to wear a face covering indoors in enclosed public spaces. This “advice” is nothing like what the government’s own behavioural science advisory group, SPI-B (subgroup of SAGE) has recommended. In a paper published this month, SPI-B was commissioned to provide recommendations on what should be done to embed Covid-safe behaviours into everyday life in the absence of legal regulation, given that the virus is not going away soon.

The paper provided extensive suggestions, based on what works in other domains of health behaviour. These included a multi-channel communication and education campaign to ensure people across all sectors of society understand the levels of risk associated with different settings and scenarios and how to mitigate those risks.

• READ MORE: Covid: 18-30s in Brighton urged to get tested as cases rise

The SPI-B paper also recommended resources for individuals, businesses and organisations to ensure they have the most up-to-date information about the level of risk they face in their locality and how to adapt their behaviour in response to that level of risk.

In short, if the mandate for face coverings is to end, in the face of a continued threat from the virus, the public need education on risks and mitigations (eg how masks work, differences between indoor and outdoor, importance of ventilation). Instead, the government has emphasised “personal responsibility” and “personal judgment” without equipping people with the capacity to make informed decisions.Its backtrack from the talk of “freedom day” is to be welcomed. The fanfare around “freedom” wrongly communicated there was less risk. But the new language of “caution” and “vigilance” also has problems. As with “stay alert”, no one is quite sure what it means. It’s open to multiple interpretations. Unlike “stay at home”, it does not specify what actions people should take.

Man with a face mask

The change from a mandate to a matter of personal judgement and interpretation has further dangers. After Monday, there will be people who continue to wear masks. Some of them might see those who do not do so as selfish, uncaring and disrespectful. Some of those who drop masks might see those who continue to wear them as over-anxious and joyless. Where these differences become seen as defining groups of people, not only will it lead to argument, but it could also create further major division in society, undermining the collective spirit shown to be essential in suppressing the pandemic. Another level of division could be between frontline staff and the public, where shops and businesses require face masks and some people insist on their right to refuse, or between venues insisting customers show vaccine passports and people who have not been vaccinated.

The pandemic is not over. Many are still suffering socially, psychologically and financially. Anger is understandable that the sacrifices we have made are being squandered by the government. But it’s counterproductive to direct this anger at other members of the public. Until it is over, we need to protect the vulnerable from mortality and everyone from serious illness and risks of long Covid. For that we need two things. Social solidarity and a proper programme of social support and education from this government.

l Prof John Drury is professor of social psychology at the University of Sussex. He participates in the SPI-B advisory sub-group.