The UK is in its third lockdown. An authoritarian tactic born out of China that has swept across the world. Neil Ferguson, a scientific advisor to the Government, ran a flawed model in early 2020 that had been used in previous research on influenza, forecasting 500,000 deaths in the UK and 2 million in the USA as a result of Covid-19 by October 2020. His model even went as far as to predict the USA could incur up to 1 million deaths even with enhanced social distancing and shielding of the elderly. Of course the model was drastically wrong.
Just like all of Neil Ferguson’s other previous models in the past 20 years for things such as mad cow disease, bird flu and foot and mouth. However these results are what influenced the prime minister of the UK, Boris Johnson, to impose the first lockdown, and here we are nearly one year later, in the third lockdown. The definition of insanity according to Einstein is “doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” But there’s a new insanity now spreading across the country that is just plain “bad science” – the mandatory wearing of face coverings.
The Daily Expose, today stumbled upon an article written for theconversation.com titled “Joggers and cyclists should wear masks – here’s why”…and we just had to respond.
First of all, wearing a face covering in any setting is not supported by science, a statement we can support with the results from a recent trial conducted in the spring of 2020.
The ‘Danmask-19 trial’ was conducted with over 6,000 participants, when the public were not being told to wear masks but other public health measures were in place. Unlike other studies looking at masks, the Danmask study was a randomised controlled trial – making it the highest quality scientific evidence.
Around half of those in the trial received 50 disposable surgical face masks, which they were told to change after eight hours of use. After one month, the trial participants were tested using both PCR (don’t get us started on these phoney tests), antibody and lateral flow tests and compared with the trial participants who did not wear a mask. Randomised trials are important if we want to understand the impact of measures like face masks
In the end, there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by Covid-19. 1.8 per cent of those wearing masks caught Covid, compared to 2.1 per cent of the control group. As a result, it seems that any effect masks have on preventing the spread of the disease in the community is small.
Even the deputy chief medical officer for England, Professor Jonathan Van Tam said himself on many occasions there is no evidence that face coverings offer any protection for the general public. In one news briefing he told us he had spoke with a colleague in Hong Kong who had carried out an evidence review for the World Health Organisation and stated they “were of the same mind that there is no evidence that the general wearing of face masks by the public affects the spread of a disease in our society, what matters right now is social distancing. In terms of the hard evidence, we do not recommend face masks for general wearing by the public.”
There’s a whole raft of evidence out there to support the fact face coverings reducing infection is not supported by science, so why are we seeing articles demanding Joggers and Cyclists wear them?
Even 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.
The authors first argument was that “there are 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.” Well as we’ve previously revealed in our article ‘Does official NHS data support the Government’s Dictatorship?’, they are not. They are far from overwhelmed according to data up to the end of December 2020.
Now if they have started to become overwhelmed maybe it is due to the Government and NHS bosses “piss poor” preparation for the upcoming Winter when they had the chance in the Summer of 2020. Maybe it’s due to the current NHS staff absence levels being up to three times their usual rate, leaving ICU and A&E short staffed. Because all staff are being tested with faulty tests at least two times a week. Meaning if they get a positive reading, even with no symptoms, they must stay at home for a minimum of 10 days.
Or maybe they’re overwhelmed because of the Government’s draconian and punishing policy to lockdown the country and spread fear throughout an easily lead nation. Either way, wearing a face covering when you’re jogging or cycling is not going to save the NHS, it’s going to probably do exactly what the WHO states by getting wet and making “it difficult to breathe and promote the growth of microorganisms”. Guess what that can lead to…bacterial pneumonia! Which would be putting further strain on the NHS.
The second argument the author used for Joggers and Cyclists wearing face coverings was that it conveys a “message of social solidarity. 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.“
We didn’t know whether to laugh or cry when we read this. Social solidarity. We may be living in a twisted communistic/fascistic state at the moment but we are not a nation of communists. Social solidarity is not a good enough argument against the actual science. Social solidarity is bad science. We don’t feel like we really need to expand on our argument against the “social solidarity” comment, because if you agree with that then you really are a lost cause and there is no amount of sense we could ever knock into you.
We need your support! – If everyone reading this donated you could keep The Daily Expose going for another year and enable us to uphold our commitment to bring you the facts that the mainstream refuse to.