Colchester-based writer William Hagerup says being forced to cover up is a draconian measure

THE latest official figures estimate that 0.04 per cent of the population are carrying the coronavirus.

That means nationally you need to meet 2,300 people before you meet one with the virus.

But in Colchester, as the Gazette reported a few days ago, the infection rate is one per 100,000.

I know it can get busy at the Tollgate Sainsburys - but not that busy!

In light of this, it is quite absurd to introduce a law forcing people to cover their faces in shops all over the country. Why?

READ MORE >>> Face mask law: The two major mistakes everyone is making

Risk management: Protecting yourself and others while out and about is about managing the risk level.

As this is already so low, especially in Colchester, what difference will it make now to cover your face?

At the height of the pandemic, perhaps it would have made a difference in some parts of the country, but now?

Arbitrary: You pop into your local grocer for a pint of milk, you have to cover your face, although you’re in and out in five minutes flat.

Then you go and sit down at the pub with several other people indoors for a couple of hours. No covering required. Same in schools and offices.

Gazette:

Efficacy: The Government guidelines do not require you to wear a medical grade mask.

It is quite enough to tie a bandana or old hankie around your nose and mouth, like a highwayman.

These flimsy pieces of fabric have been likened to wearing a chain link to stop a hail of bullets.

The virus apparently hovers with the mist from our breathing in the air for a while.

Unless you wear a medical grade mask you will not stop these microbes from intermixing with your breath.

How long?: If you introduce masks now that the infection level and R-number are so low, when on earth do you lift this requirement?

The Government is backing itself into a very tight corner: the corner where depriving citizens of their liberties is the new normal, rather than a short-term emergency measure.

Gazette:

The message: If the Government told us to wear lucky heathers, the same purpose would have been fulfilled as this law seeks to fulfil: make people feel it is safe to go shopping so that they will spend, spend, spend and repair the damage from the Government’s overly strict and far too long lasting lock-down.

But I fear the effect may be the opposite: some people (like myself) will resent being forced to wear a mask and so will stay away from local shops and instead order online.

For others, seeing people walk around with masks, as if we’re all extras in an apocalyptic horror film, will induce fear.

The role of government is to protect our liberties.

We accepted the lockdown, although it was a monstrous imposition on our freedoms, because it was an effective way to stop the spread.

It worked and the virus is under control.

To use the power of the state now to force people to wear a flimsy face covering on pain of a £100 fine, can simply not be justified – it is a draconian and disproportionate measure.