From July 24th onwards, face coverings will be mandatory in all shops and supermarkets in England. It’s move that’s been broadly welcomed, one poll found 80% of the public supported the mandate, and one that’s arguably overdue, Germany made them mandatory in late April. However, some people aren’t convinced. In the Telegraph, Timothy Stanley writes:
…the problem with this sort of “new normal” is that it aims to bring Britain back to life yet makes life so unpleasant that many people will prefer to stay away. In other words it repels at least as much as it attracts.
I hate masks but I respect other people, respect the law and will obey it – hence I’m going to avoid public transport for so long as it treats me like a highly infectious child. I’ll walk or, better still, decline all invitations.
On a similar note, IEA Director General and Times columnist, Mark Littlewood tweeted:
I don’t want to hear from anyone who backs this absurd move about “saving the high street” ever again. This is lunacy. I’ll be doing as much shopping as possible through Amazon from now on.
Objections to mask mandates tend to either be based on an appeal to liberty, or a belief that wearing a mask is so inconvenient that it will put people off shopping on the high street.
I disagree and I think masks will be key to securing the economic recovery. First, It’s important to understand why the economy has contracted. Whether the lockdown or the virus itself are to blame for the recession, may sound like splitting hairs, but actually has major implications for policymakers.
For instance, if people are staying home because of fear of the virus, then policies such as Eat Out to Help Out vouchers and VAT cuts will do little to coax people back out. As the New Statesman’s Stephen Bush writes:
If you believe – as I do – that the cause of the downturn is the demand shock caused by people voluntarily observing social distancing and lockdown measures, then there’s a limit to what the government can do with fiscal stimulus. It’s much more important that they demonstrate that the virus is safely under control.
While it’s hard to deny that lockdown measures dampened economic activity, they don’t deserve all the credit. As Ryan Bourne notes for ConservativeHome:
Sweden, which didn’t lockdown to the same extent, similarly suggests voluntary distancing has been the key driver of downturns. Data from Citymapper shows that transport mobility in Stockholm fell 70 percent by the start of March. Travel to the holiday island of Gotland was down 96 percent compared with Easter last year, despite no government orders banning it.
…
Here, OpenTable data shows that UK restaurant bookings fell 82 percent by March 17th against last year, a full three days before Boris Johnson closed restaurants. City Mapper shows mobility in London had fallen 75 per cent the day before full lockdown was announced, with Manchester and Birmingham exhibiting similar patterns.
Ryan points me in the direction of a new study that tries to quantify the respective impacts of voluntary and involuntary social distancing. In “Private Precaution and Public Restrictions: What Drives Social Distancing and Industry Foot Traffic in the COVID-19 Era?” economists Christopher Cronin and William Evans find that mobility data:
…at the national and state levels start to change dramatically in a short window from March 8-14, well before state or local restrictions of note are in place.
Specifically, the data shows:
Private, self-regulating behaviour explains more than three-quarters of the decline in foot traffic in most industries. Restrictive regulation explains half the decline in foot traffic in essential retail and 75 percent of the increase in the fraction home all day. In this latter result, public school closings have a substantial effect.
NB: (For a UK focused analysis, see this great Bank Underground post - HT Mike Bird)
If mandatory mask use can then reduce the risk of catching the virus (and evidence suggests it can), then it will reassure consumers and increase high street activity. This isn’t to say there aren’t costs to face masks, many people find them uncomfortable, and they can be particularly inconvenient for glasses wearers. But, if fear of the virus is keeping people at home, then the benefits will likely outweigh the costs.
A new poll from Kekst CNC suggests that mask mandates may make people feel safer. Of those polled, 42% said seeing other people in masks made them feel reassured, while just 5% said they made them feel scared or less safe than usual.
Of course, if mask mandates reassure consumers, it prompts the question – why haven’t shops imposed them anyway? The issue is you only benefit from reassuring customers if you can advertise your mandate. This isn’t easy and unless you have a direct route of communication with your customers, it isn’t cheap. As a result, shops that decide to go it alone receive few benefits, while at the same time losing out on the non-mask wearing trade (unless they provide the mask themselves).
Furthermore, the mandate will also reduce virus prevalence more generally, reducing the risk you’ll come into contact with a coronavirus carrier, masked or otherwise.
But even if you take the view that lockdown rules take most of the credit for changes in consumer behaviour, you should still welcome mask mandates as by reducing R they make outbreaks, and by consequence, lockdowns, less likely.