Now it seems like you're being disingenuous. I'm pretty sure you know that his stance on masks has been updated since March. I would get into the reasons why but I'm pretty sure you don't actually care.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfbH3oko9SA

If you don't want to wear a mask do you. But fact is masks are at least partially effective in preventing the spread of corona virus. There are literally 100s of studies on this.

You asked for an esteemed virologist, I provided the highest ranked one.

Also my stance is everything should be optional. Adults are fully capable of making decisions on their own about their health.

The effectiveness of masks is minimal at best, detrimental at worst. Either way it’s secondary to the ridiculousness of being FORCED TO WEAR IT

According to Trump censored reporting from the CDC masks reduce the risk of COVID infections by 70%.

That means 70% less people dying.

Even if you could only hypothetically save lives by putting a piece of cloth on your face, why not just suck it up and do it.

3000 people are dying every day now.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...sars-cov2.html

maybe my math is wrong but the latest numbers for covid's death rate, from johns hopkins is 87.49 deaths out of 100 thousand.

wouldn't that make the death rate 0.08749?

i dropped out in the 9th grade. someone confirm

edit, thats america's death rate btw. other countries are lower and higher

Your math isn't wrong but we're talking about two different quantities.

You're looking at deaths/population

The 1% figure is deaths/infections. Approx. 1% of people who catch covid die. Not everyone in the population is infected so that rate is much smaller.

wouldn't it be disingenuous then to say that 1 percent of the population would die if everyone was infected than?

i seen new yorkers tweeting about restaurants closing again, and citing a 1.4 percent of covid infections occurred from dining out at restaurants or some shit, figure. basically arguing against the lockdown

is there somewhere that is tracking where people are getting it?

my sister is an occupational therapist who works with the elderly, and they constantly get outbreaks there. its almost like the people most likely to die from this thing are the ones most likely to get it as well lol. i'd like to see that type of data though, like where are people actually contracting it.

Wow Mr MIT educated engineer, your math skills are impeccable.

Reducing the risk of infected doesn’t mean 70% less people dying. That would only be the case if 100% of infections led to death.

“Why not suck it up and do it”

Why should I limit my freedoms due to your unnecessary fear? How about, the people I’m supposed to be protecting, THEY STAY INSIDE. Woaaahh what a concept!

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Cases: 16,290,231
Deaths: 302,727
Population: 328,200,000

Death rate (Cases/Deaths) : 1.858%
Deaths / population : 0.092%

If 1000 people get infected without masks. Death rate of 1% is 10 deaths.

70% reduction is 300 infections with masks. Death rate of 1% is 3 deaths.

That is a 70% reduction is deaths. Pro-tip: Look up the commutative property of multiplication.

That’s the problem with you nerd types. You never apply context. “Reduce the risk of Covid infections by 70%” is not the same as “exactly 70% less people will catch Covid” which nukes your explanation

You give me editorials? From the federalist??. Smfh

I was ready to agree with you if you better sources

https://www.brookings.edu/research/t...ze-well-being/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7340075/


For your 'appearing marginally informed' pleasure

Keep in mind all the deaths you see that are reported to the CDC, by their own disclaimer, are not just confirmed cases, they are also PROBABLE cases. Which by definition means they could be wrong.

They put the “maybe they died from it “ with the “they definitely died from it” pile and put THAT number on the TV.

Lowering the risk of infection by 70% will lower infections by 70% for the same mathematical reason as above.

You're obviously going to argue regardless of facts tho, so I think I'm calling it here for today.

“OOOH OOOH look! I got better sources than youuu haha! “


Good for you my guy

would yall take the vaccine if you got paid to do it? they are talking about only giving the stimulus check to people that take it.

Coop is losing hard.

I understand people will die if this thing is allowed to spread without active attempts to curb it, I just personally see that as a good thing.

I, for one, am largely in favor of population control, but there are many ways to go about it that are far more ethical than having people suffocating in the hospitals for 2 weeks before they die while simultaneously overwhelming the entire medical industry

Wow ok, I was just trying to sound cool.

I agree with you to a non retarded extent but you're giving me an editorial like it's a source? You might as well be linking to your own posts at that point

You're welcome btw