When COVID-19 reached our shores, Times of Malta was among the first to urge the public to heed the health authorities’ advice.
When the numbers of infected people started rising and there was pressure on the health system, we endorsed the partial lockdown, because science showed it was the best way to keep the situation under control.
Since the vaccines arrived in Malta, we have been relentlessly urging the public to get jabbed because, so far, they have proven effective against COVID-19.
For the past 20 months, we have urged the public to be vigilant and not let their guard down altogether because COVID is here to stay.
But we cannot support the latest draconian measure, urging the public to wear masks outdoors at all times, because there is simply no scientific justification to do so.
From Saturday, anyone over the age of three is required to wear a mask when leaving their home – even if they are walking alone. Failing to do that could land you a €100 fine. Malta is the only EU state adopting such a strict measure outdoors.
Health Minister Chris Fearne has rightly warned that Malta must prepare for the Omicron variant during the busy Christmas period.
But such preparation should be evidence-based, and so far, health authorities have provided no explanation to justify this rule or the many contradictions it comes with.
Masks have proven indispensable in controlling the spread of coronavirus indoors, but the science suggests that wearing masks outdoors is practically ineffective.
According to contract-tracing data from Ireland released last March, just one coronavirus infection in every thousand cases occurred outdoors.
A study of 1,245 cases in China found only three people were infected outdoors and they were sparked in conversation without masks.
According to a review by the University of California of five global studies of transmission, the chances of getting the virus in an indoor setting is 19 times greater than outdoors.
Linsey Marr, a scientist who specialises in viruses in the atmosphere, said viral particles quickly disperse in outdoor air, and the risk of inhaling aerosolised virus from a jogger or passers-by is negligible.
“Even if a person coughs or sneezes outside as you walk by, the odds of you getting a large enough dose of virus to become infected remain low,” she said.
It simply does not make sense to ask people to have their masks on when they take a walk in the open air and then remove them when they sit indoors, say, in a restaurant.
Nor does it make sense to threaten countryside ramblers with a fine while turning a blind eye to all sorts of overcrowded indoor events, which are far higher risk.
This needs to be seen in the context of a country where more than 90 per cent are fully vaccinated, where the uptake of the booster vaccine is very encouraging and where, by and large, most people have respected the regulations.
Do you blame these law-abiding citizens for asking why the focus should not shift to lax enforcement inside certain establishments? Would you blame them for asking why their own parliamentarians continue to refuse to wear masks inside the chamber?
The new measure will undoubtedly put off people from seeking the outdoors, enjoying the countryside and potentially hike up the already worrying rates of mental health cases.
Most worryingly, such a measure plays right into the hands of the sceptics and anti-vaxxers who have hardly been helpful in the fight against the pandemic.
The minister’s announcement last Thursday was met with widespread criticism. A lot of that criticism came from people who have done their bit to keep the virus at bay. And when that happens, it means it is going to be very difficult to convince people to adopt stricter measures when, or if, the COVID situation takes another turn for the worse.