Masking While Exercising and the Tangled Web of the Masking Mandate

A recent piece on "The Conversation" looked at the use of masks while exercising.  Before we get to the content of the piece, let's look at some background regarding "The Conversation" to help put the article into context.

 

Here is what "The Conversation" has to say about itself (from the American version of the website):

 

The Conversation was founded in 2011 and has editions in Africa, Australia (founding nation), Canada, Spain, France, Indonesia, New Zealand, theUnited Kingdom and the United States as well as a Global Perspectives edition

 

Here are the founding partners of The Conversation, again, from the United States edition:

 

Here are the funders of The Conversation:

 

Please note that I am saving one last strategic partner for the end of this posting as a "surprise".

  

In order to have your musings published by The Conversation, you must "...be currently employed as a researcher or academic with a university or university-affiliated research institution. PhD candidates under supervision by an academic can write for us, but we don’t currently publish articles from Masters students."

  

In other words, the riffraff/useless eaters/sweaty masses need not apply no matter how qualified they might be.

  

Now, let's look at the article that will be the focus of the remainder of this posting.  Here is a screen capture showing the title:

 

Here is some information about the author of the article, Trish Greenhalgh:

 

Here are some key quotes from her musings with bolds being mine:

  

"Masks, which when worn correctly are highly effective in reducing transmission, are already compulsory in indoor public places in the UK. There is talk of making them mandatory in some outdoor settings, as is currently the case in Spain. Perhaps the UK should follow France and require people who are jogging or cycling to wear masks if they are unable to maintain a physical distance from pedestrians.

 

There are many arguments against such a measure. The risk of transmitting coronavirus outdoors is an order of magnitude less than indoors, according to a study that has yet to be published in a scientific journal. Exercising outdoors is one of the few freedoms people in England still have. When jogging or cycling, contacts tend to be rare and fleeting, so would not meet the UK’s official definition of a “close contact” for which one needs to spend 15 minutes closer than two metres – though this time period can now be notched up in a series of shorter encounters throughout a day." 

  

Greenhalagh goes on to invoke the World Health Organization:

  

"The World Health Organization (WHO) is adamant that: “People should NOT wear masks when exercising, as masks may reduce the ability to breathe comfortably”; and “Sweat can make the mask become wet more quickly which makes it difficult to breathe and promotes the growth of microorganisms.” The WHO recommendation is to maintain at least one-metre physical distance from others.

 

But there are also strong arguments for challenging the WHO’s advice. The main one being that the NHS is truly overwhelmed for the first time in its 70-year history because of the rise in COVID hospital admissions. All possible measures must be taken to reduce these numbers."

 

Here is her "ethical argument" for wearing masks while exercising:

  

"1.) The exhaled breath of someone who is exercising vigorously has a different composition and different aerodynamic properties to that of someone who is not. As we all know, a passing jogger breathes heavily, generating exhalations with much higher momentum than occurs with resting breathing. 

 

In cold weather, clouds of moisture-laden air become visible as the jogger exhales – and these clouds spread much farther than those exhaled by walkers. Formal studies of the aerodynamics of breathing confirm that heavy breathers emit turbulent gas clouds in which are suspended droplets and microdroplets of different sizes, some of which are carried considerably farther than two metres.

 

2.) Several coronavirus variants have been shown to be more transmissible than the original virus. Because each infected person is now likely to infect between 30%-60% more people than previously, an unlucky inhalation in the vicinity of a passing jogger – itself a rare possibility – is now much more likely to lead to an escalating series of secondary cases, one or more of which could be fatal.

 

...and, most frighteningly...

 

3.) A final reason for wearing masks when exercising near others is the message of social solidarity it conveys. The masked jogger or cyclist is saying both “the pandemic is still very serious” and “your safety is more important than my comfort or my lap time”. Instead of aggressive stand-offs between maskless exercisers and fearful walkers (which sometimes involves the potentially contagious act of shouting at close quarters), we could look forward to both parties exchanging a silent wave as they pass peacefully."

 

And there we have it, virtue signalling is considered by this author to be one of the main reasons why we should wear masks while exercising in the great outdoors.

 

With this in mind, let's take a closer look at the author.  As shown here, Greenhalgh just happens to be a contributor to the World Economic Forum's Agenda series (Stories shaping the Global, Regional and Industry agendas) as shown here:

 

Greenhalgh was also the signatory on an open letter from May 14, 2020, promoting the use of fabric masks to prevent COVID-19.  The letter was co-ordinated by Jeremy Howard, a research scientist at the University of San Francisco and also appeared as the subject of a missive on The Conversation website as shown here:

It is interesting to note that Howard quotes advice given by Greenhalgh in the aforementioned article.  

Now that we've added another player to the "masking game", let's take a closer look at Jeremy Howard.  Between 2013 and January 2019, he was a Young Global Leader at the World Economic Forum.  Here is his CV from his page on the WEF website where he is now a member of the WEF's Global AI Council

 

Here is his CV from his page on the WEF website where he was a member of the WEF's Global AI Council:

 

He also happens to be a contributor to "The Conversation" as I noted above and as shown here:

 

Now that we've seen how tangled this masking mandate web is, let's look at the final piece of the puzzle that I promised to share at the beginning of this posting.  Here is a screen capture from The Conversation website the United States edition's strategic partner:

 

....and there we have it; once again the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation shows up like flies on a steaming, fresh turd.  Given that many of the "experts" whose opinions are shared on The Conversation's website and their links with various research universities around the globe, particularly Oxford University (Trish Greenhalgh's employer and a member of The Conversation's UK edition) that are heavily funded by the Gates Foundation, what are the odds that their view on subjects like the pandemic won't completely parallel that of "their maker/funder"?

 

Now that you have seen how tangled the masking mandate web is, I would suggest that we need do the following: anyone who is considered an expert on any aspect of COVID-19 should be asked whether they or their employer has ever received any funding from Bill Gates just so that the unwashed masses can put their "expertise" into context.  All you have to do is follow the money and you'll figure out the veracity of the message.  Trish Greenhalgh and her masking while exercising is but one example of the tangled web that exists behind the Cult of COVID.