You do yourself more harm than good exercising with a mask. From Arjun Walla at collective-evolution.com:
- The Facts:A study published in June 2020 raises some health concerns about people wearing masks while exercising. It also calls into question the ability of masks to stop Covid-19.
- Reflect On:Are the mandatory orders that we are being given from government health authorities really the right thing to do? Why is there such a back-lash for questioning these measures? Should we not encourage questioning and discussion?
What Happened: A recent study published in the Journal Medical Hypothesis titled “Exercise with facemask; Are we handling a devil’s sword? – A physiological hypothesis” claims the following:
Exercising with facemasks may reduce available Oxygen and increase air trapping preventing substantial carbon dioxide exchange. The hypercapnic hypoxia may potentially increase acidic environment, cardiac overload, anaerobic metabolism and renal overload, which may substantially aggravate the underlying pathology of established chronic diseases. Further contrary to the earlier thought, no evidence exists to claim the facemasks during exercise offer additional protection from the droplet transfer of the virus. Hence, we recommend social distancing is better than facemasks during exercise and optimal utilization rather than exploitation of facemasks during exercise.
According to the authors, exercising with facemasks induced as “a hypercapnic hypoxia environment [inadequate Oxygen (O2) and Carbon dioxide (CO2) exchange] . This acidic environment, both at the alveolar and blood vessels level, induces numerous physiological alterations when exercising with facemasks: 1) Metabolic shift; 2) cardiorespiratory stress; 3) excretory system altercations; 4) Immune mechanism; 5) Brain and nervous system.’
To repeat: face masking isn’t about medicine and health, it’s about power and control. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:
Jefferson wrote that it is evil and tyrannical to force a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he despises.
Something far more evil and tyrannical is afoot. Or rather, being forced onto people’s faces.
The thing itself is itself is merely sad. Its wearer – by choice – identifies himself as a person easily scared or very neurotic. A person who believes that death – as opposed to the cases! the cases! – is in the air rather than being transmitted over the air.
And that feelings prevent sickness.
If this person were thinking rather than feeling, he would not wear a dirty bandana over his face nor be calmed by the sight of others so attired. He would wear at least an N100 mask/respirator – something that is actually effective at “stopping the spread” . . . but which also costs a great deal more than a dirty bandana or a throw-away face condom.
Apparently, his life – and granny’s – isn’t worth the $25 or so it takes to buy an N100 or better device. Plus the goggles. Mustn’t forget them . . . assuming this isn’t about feelings.
But of course, it is about spreading submission – to an idea – by participating in a ritual.
By making everyone look the same the impression is conveyed that they think the same. Which serves to legitimize this sameness.
It also serves another, more despicable purpose. That being to make the thinking feel – by looking – foolish. When he knows better.
Maybe I’ll move to Netherlands. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:
American public health experts, led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, have struggled over the past couple of months to push a specific narrative on the public: Wearing a mask doesn’t so much protect you from being infected with SARS-CoV-2, but if you are infected, wearing a mask could stop you from passing the virus to someone else.
The mainstream media has backed up these assertions with vague references to “science” and “research”, while a coalition of celebrities and progressive activists have tried to tar anybody who doubts this narrative – or, worse, refuses to wear a mask at all times outside their home – as a “denier”.
Well, if everybody who is skeptical of the “masks save lives, period” is a “denier”, then how does one explain the Dutch government’s decision to refuse to mandate mask wearing (the only place where masks must be worn in the Netherlands is on public transit).
On Thursday, Reuters reported that the Dutch government had decided the day before that it would not advise the public to wear masks to slow the spread of coronavirus because their effectiveness has not yet been proven.
Joseph Mercola carefully reviews the science concerning face masks. From Mercola at lewrockwell.com:
The question of whether we should wear face masks or not to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is a hotly contested issue. Part of the confusion may be related to the difference between viral particles spread via respiratory droplets, and viral particles spread via the air itself.
I believe it’s important to realize the difference between these two modes of transmission, and to not overestimate the protection you can get or give others by wearing a mask.
The science1,2 clearly shows face coverings of various kinds do little if anything to prevent respiratory illnesses caused by aerosolized viruses. Many health authorities still insist that something is better than nothing, though, since they do inhibit the dissemination of viral-laden respiratory droplets.
But influenza viruses — coronaviruses that cause the common cold and SARS-CoV-2 — all spread via the air, not just via droplets or touching contaminated surfaces, and it’s important to realize that preventing droplet contamination does not mean you also prevent the transmission of the aerosolized virus. (The aerosol part of transmission is regrettably overlooked in the video above, which reviews a number of problems with mandatory mask recommendations.)
Strictly speaking, there is no “settled science” on anything. Old hypotheses are continually giving way to new ones. From Chris Calton at mises.org:
As the “fifteen days to slow the spread” continues to extend indefinitely, the issue of mask mandates has become increasingly contentious. The debate has been exacerbated by the inconsistency of the recommendations of authorities (political, scientific, and imaginary). Early in the pandemic, both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) advised against the use of masks, except by those who are particularly vulnerable (the elderly and immunocompromised) and their caretakers.
Many of us with some understanding of economics made such arguments at the outset of the debate, not necessarily because of any epidemiological expertise. When you understand the principle of scarcity, policies mandating that healthy teenagers vie for medical products with their more vulnerable grandparents is a formula for exacerbating the most severe outcome of any viral infection. In fairness, many medical experts raised exactly these concerns, even if they did not enjoy the media attention of their more demagogic counterparts.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the masks-for-all policy, it is heartening to see how well entrepreneurs adapted to the spiked demand, making masks cheaply available in various designs, sizes, and materials, solving the problem of fear-driven people trying to steal masks from emergency rooms. Of course, the dazzling speed of the market response obscures the fact that the adaptation to new conditions and an ostensible emergency would have been even more immediate had private businesses not been forced to wait on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to sell masks to healthcare workers.
The situation is no different in the US. From Paul Joseph Watson at zerohedge.com:
The same type of face masks that the UK government is mandating people wear in shops from July 24 onwards to protect against the spread of coronavirus specifically state on their packaging that they don’t protect against coronavirus.
Earlier this week, the government confirmed that anyone caught not wearing a mask when entering a shop or supermarket will be subject to a police fine of £100, prompting the Chair of the London Metropolitan Police Foundation to complain that this would be totally unenforcable.
However, the law states that cloth masks, scarves or other textile items that don’t require the use of hands to hold them in place are acceptable forms of protection against COVID-19.
One problem with that, the packaging on these kind of cloth masks specifically states that they don’t protect against COVID-19.
“This product is an ear loop mask. This product is not a respirator and will not provide any protection against COVID-19 (coronavirus) or any other viruses or contaminants,” states the packaging on a standard set of cloth masks currently being sold.
One man’s lonely stand on principle. From Rod Peet Jr. at lewrockwell.com:
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
I thought my employer was my friend. I was approaching retirement without a job and it appeared I would be in dire straits during that final phase of life. Then I was given my latest job. It wasn’t an act of friendship, per se. More an act of capitalism. We both benefited. I made close acquaintances there. It felt like an act of friendship to me. Retirement was going to be OK.
Then the corona virus struck. It appeared to be a more aggressive form of the flu but the flu nonetheless. Precautions should be taken. Wash hands, isolate the sick, protect the elderly. Fine. Common sense response.
Then everyone’s enemy, the government, struck. Governments across the country began to engage in criminal activity (see U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1; Texas Constitution, Bill of Rights, Sections 6, 19, 27, 28, 29; Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242).
Here is the best summary we’ve seen of the science and scientific literature pertaining to face masks. From Joseph Mercola at lewrockwell.com:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been conflicting advice about wearing face masks or face coverings, even within the same public health agencies. For example, some medical organizations claim that wearing a mask only protects others from you if you are carrying the virus, but urge you to wear one if you are in close contact with a COVID-19 patient — which infers that a mask could protect you from an infected person.
The advice raises several questions. First, many people can be carrying the virus and not know it because they are asymptomatic and have not been tested. How would these people know to wear a mask? Secondly, if a mask is indicated if you are in close contact with a COVID-19 patient, then that would indicate that a mask does protect you from others and not just others from you. So, which is the truth?
There is another element to the conflicting advice. Some medical experts claim that wearing a face mask is harmful to the wearer. Not only does it not protect you, they say, but it can limit your oxygen and even redirect harmful pathogens that you may be carrying back into your airway. As COVID-19 lockdowns end and people are getting out in the public again, what does the evidence say about wearing masks?
Masks are yet another counterproductive infringement on our civil liberties imposed by coronavirus fearmongers. From Jack Hellner at americanthinker.com:
The CDC now says it has proof that wearing face masks reduced COVID-19 cases in NYC by 66,000 from April 17 to May 9.
Face masks reduce New York coronavirus cases by over 66,000, study deems it most effective way to check spread
Health experts have been advising people to wear face masks in public to prevent the spread of Covid-19 and now numbers indicate that it works. A new study shows that wearing a face mask dramatically decreases a person’s chances of being infected by the new coronavirus. Researchers found that using a face mask alone reduced the number of Covid-19 infections by more than 66,000 in New York City from April 17 to May 9.
Via Public Domain Pictures.
There is no way they would know this, and it is as made up as the modeling numbers that CDC put out in March that showed that hundreds of millions would get the disease and millions would die. That is the study that destroyed the economy and caused governors throughout the country to require us to wear masks, social distance, and avoid large groups for the first time in our lives.