The Guardian view on protecting the public: cover your face

Wicked. Horrific. An affront to British liberties. Proposals to make wearing seatbelts compulsory were angrily opposed in the early 1970s. Some warned that it might make motorists more reckless, or endanger unborn babies. MPs claimed there was no real evidence of the benefits. Others complained it would be uncomfortable for women or the elderly. It took years of political battle to change the law, saving tens of thousands of lives.

In retrospect, the outrage looks not merely mistaken but utterly bizarre. Wearing a seatbelt is simply a matter of course now. Yet similar claims have been heard in this pandemic when it comes to wearing masks. The World Health Organization insisted there was not enough evidence to recommend their routine use, changing its advice only last month. Other officials warned that mask-wearers might be lulled into a false sense of security, and would fail to distance themselves from others. There was real and understandable concern that mass purchases would leave no protection for medics and other frontline workers who desperately needed it. But this disparagement of masks may have come at a cost.

In the US, an extraordinary culture war has seen opponents rail against impeding “God’s wonderful breathing system”. But the majority of Americans are wearing masks as they go about their business. In contrast, less than a third of the UK population is thought to do so. The challenge now is to make donning them as much a reflex when people are close together as putting on a seatbelt when in a car. Creating new norms does not always require compulsion. But in many cases, persuasion alone proves insufficient.

England was right – if very tardy – in making face coverings mandatory on public transport, though not all passengers comply. Now Nicola Sturgeon, first minister of Scotland, has announced that wearing them in Scotland’s shops will become compulsory. Downing Street should follow suit, especially as it rushes to reopen more of the economy (heedless of the concern of many experts), has ditched the 2-metre distancing rule, and is urging even “shielders” to get out and about.

Even very high quality masks may not protect the wearer if used incorrectly. But even homemade masks can protect others. There is growing evidence that they can prevent the wearer transmitting the virus. They are particularly important because people can pass it on without being symptomatic.

Masks are no substitute for measures such as test-and-trace, handwashing and distancing. But in the US, Goldman Sachs has estimated that making people wear masks in public could avoid further surges – and therefore lockdowns that could trim 5% from the struggling US economy.

Other places realised much sooner their role in controlling Covid-19; some governments distributed masks. In many Asian countries, mask-wearing was already normal – in part because of the Sars outbreak in the early 1990s. If it can become commonplace in Seoul and Taipei, it can here.

Yes, masks can be mildly uncomfortable or inconvenient – just like crash helmets for motorcyclists, or protective gear for workers. Young children and some adults are already exempted from using them on public transport for reasons such as illness or disability. But for most of us, the discomfort is minimal, and should be irrelevant when set against the clear benefits. Overall, the public has been much more cautious than Downing Street in this pandemic; and it has been proved right. Whether or not England follows Scotland’s lead, people can and should take their own precautions.