Trump says he took the vaccine and recommends others do so as well, then receives some boos from his audience - video. He even says "I did it, it's good." He also tells those booing "you've got your freedoms." Trump would later say that he got the COVID-19 booster shot in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, and this was met with boos from a crowd of his supporters just as he was when he said "I did it, it's good" when talking about getting the vaccine to a different crowd of his supporters. Trump even says "you're playing right into their hands" in response to conservative vaccine skepticism and hesitancy when he was booed during the O'Reilly interview. On a podcast with Candace Owens, Trump even rebuked her skepticism, saying that "the vaccines work," and "the ones who get very sick and go to the hospital are the ones that don’t take the vaccine. But it’s still their choice. And if you take the vaccine, you’re protected." He also went on to say, "Look, the results of the vaccine are very good, and if you do get it, it’s a very minor form. People aren’t dying when they take the vaccine.”

The reason US government encourages/recommends (not force or coerce like some conservative idiots with a persecution fetish who think being criticized for not getting the vaccine means they're oppressed pretend Biden and the government are doing) people get the vaccine is the same reason the government recommended children eat healthy and exercise and encouraged people to stop smoking or not start in the first place under the Obama administration. The government has an interest in you being healthy so it would make sense that the government recommends you take certain actions to limit the risk of being sick or unhealthy. But for some people who need a quick way to feel special but are too lazy to actually do anything meaningful they can just not get the vaccine (or say they didn't) and claim they're not like the other sheep who did (because apparently if you take advice from someone or are motivated to do something partly due to someone else's suggestion you're a brainwashed sheep).

With the vaccine, I think a lot of people who argue against it or will talk endlessly about not getting it or think there's something shady going since it's being made freely available on just think it's smart to be skeptical until there are actual consequences for them. I also think many of these people think the fact that it's being made freely available is some hint at a shady ulterior motive to make Bill Gates or "big pharma" money are just telling the world how terrible of a person they are. To me, this just shows that they're selfish assholes who can't fathom the idea of caring about another person and thus think anything that's remotely helpful to others has some ulterior motive or sinister plot attached to it.

While the COVID-19 vaccine won't make you immune to the virus or totally prevent you from contracting the virus, it does and leads to better health outcomes in those that do contract the virus. That's how vaccines work in general - your body is given a small amount of a disease or virus so it can learn how to fight it off so when and if you do contract the actual disease or virus your body has been trained to fight it off so you don't get sick or as sick as you would if you were not previously exposed to the small dose. Essentially, a vaccine familiarizes your immune system with a pathogen so it knows how to fight it off. Like you would train your body in preparation for a sport, the vaccine trains your body to fight off a virus. Why get vaccinated? Well, why train for a sport rather than just throwing yourself in right away and trying to build up muscle, strength, and endurance while playing it? This is obviously a rhetorical question, as it would be stupid to just show up to something like a triathlon with no training at all and expect to be fine - your body would have no idea how to react to all of this sudden activity and movement and it would fail you.

Because people who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 get less sick, most COVID-19 deaths in America (as of July 27th, 2021) are people who are unvaccinated. For example, a local news station in Ohio found that 99.5% of Ohio residents that died of COVID-19 in 2021 were unvaccinated. A local news station in South Carolina reports that over 90% of COVID-19 deaths in the state during the month of June were unvaccinated people. A local news station in Tennessee reports that 98% of COVID-19 deaths and 97% of hospitalizations are unvaccinated people. The Baltimore Sun reports that every person who died of COVID-19 in Maryland in the month of June was unvaccinated. The Texas Tribune reports that 99.5% of all COVID-19 deaths in the state since February were unvaccinated people. A July article in Health Feedback identifies that "In the U.S., COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are concentrated among unvaccinated individuals." A variety of other sources and organizations like AP News, WebMD, DHEC, all report similar findings. A report from the Texas State Department of Health Services even found that "Unvaccinated people were 13 times more likely to become infected with COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people," and, "Unvaccinated people were 20 times more likely to experience COVID-19-associated death than fully vaccinated people."

As of Saturday, July 31st 2021, Vermont has the highest percentage of its population vaccinated at 67.5%. The state with the lowest total is Alabama at 34.3%. You can check that here on the Mayo Clinic website and look at the page as it was on July 31st here. As you can see below in Figure 8, Vermont has had very few COVID-19 deaths throughout 2021 whereas Alabama has had much more. This data comes from US News and you can view the page as it was on July 31st here. The COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 have also risen drastically since January in Alabama but only raised a small but and then leveled out in Vermont. This is visualized below in Figure 9 and you can view that data here. Keep in mind that the vaccine became available to Americans in mid to late December. So, since the vaccine became available, the state with the highest percentage of their population vaccinated (as of July 31st) has seen a minimal increase in cases and deaths per 100,000 while the state with the least percentage vaccinated has seen huge increases in deaths and deaths per 100,00. Hmmmm. With 34.5% of the population vaccinated as of July 31st, Mississippi has the second lowest percentage. Comparing it with Vermont and we see the same trends in total COVID-19 deaths, seen in Figure 10 and available here, and deaths per 100,000, seen in Figure 11 and available here. The gap between Vermont's COVID-19 deaths and deaths per 100,000 and Alabama and Mississippi's deaths and deaths per 100,000 increased drastically after the vaccine became available. Coincidence? The CDC website also shows that, on the week of August 3rd, 2021, Vermont has one of the lowest case rates while states like Mississippi and Alabama have one of the highest. This is seen below in Figure 13.

The Republican governor of Utah, Spencer Cox, has stated that anti-vaccine "propaganda" from the right wing and vaccine hesitancy is "literally killing people," harmful, and certainly not helpful in a news conference according to The Salt Lake Tribune. He also states "We have these talking heads who have gotten the vaccine and are telling other people not to get it. That kind of stuff is dangerous, it’s damaging, and it’s killing people." He also recommends that people "ignore all of these other voices that are giving demonstrably bad advice" and points out that vaccine misinformation is just killing the supporters of the people spreading vaccine misinformation. He even says the Republican party should be taking credit for the vaccine and praised Trump for his efforts in creating the vaccine. He urges Utah residents to get vaccinated. This echoes a sentiment from this Youtube video about vaccines in which the Youtuber notes that talking heads like Bill Maher think it's smart or cool to be skeptical about vaccines right up until there are consequences for himself. Mitt Romney even called Republicans polarization of the vaccine "moronic." He also states "After all, President Trump and his supporters take credit for developing the vaccine, why the heck won’t they take advantage of the vaccine they received plaudits for having developed?" It's almost as if conservatives just want to oppose whatever Biden and "the left" are doing, even if what they are doing is the same thing Trump did or planned on doing.

Obviously, the decision to get vaccinated or not is up to the individual - that's the whole "my body by choice" thing. Individuals have the right to not get vaccinated the same way governments, organizations, and private companies have the right to suggest individuals do get vaccinated. But, going back to that analogy, would you really just want to show up to a triathlon the day off without training your body for it whatsoever? And choosing not to get vaccinated doesn't mean you can't be criticized. And that criticism doesn't mean you're oppressed (but for people who've never experienced adversity in their lives, receiving criticism is treated like oppression).

Do businesses have a right to refuse people who aren't vaccinated in their stores or keep them in separate areas? Yes. Businesses already do this with smokers. Many businesses don't allow people to smoke inside their property or may designate a special area where smoking is allowed. To those who claim segregation - both refusing the vaccine and smoking are a personal choice of risk and we keep others protected by enforcing restrictions. Same thing with vaccine ads on TV and elsewhere. We have advertisements warning people not to smoke (not to do something that can negatively affect their health) so it would make sense that there are advertisements that urge people to get vaccinated (and not do something which could negatively affect their health considering the vaccine drastically reduces how sick you could be if you caught COVID).

Watch the second half of this video for a rant that is more entertaining than what I have to say and hits on almost all the points I make.

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: While particles of COVID19 are around 0.125 microns (often abbreviated to μm) in size, they are never just floating around in the air naked. Viruses like the coronavirus are often transmitted through respiratory droplets produced by coughing, sneezing, breathing, talking, etc... These droplets COVID19 attaches itself to range in size from 5 microns to 0.5 microns, meaning that that the COVID19 particles attached to these larger particles make the size of the particle even bigger. So again, COVID19 is never just floating around freely by itself, it is always attached to mucus protein, water droplets, or other aerosols and bodily fluids generated by breathing, talking, coughing, etc... These droplets can travel close to 6 meters in the event of a sneeze, 2 meters in the event of a cough, and 1 meter in normal breathing (a big reason why social distancing is a thing and why it is important to wear a mask even if you are asymptomatic).

Facemasks reduce aerosol exposure by a combination of the filtering action of the fabric and the seal between the mask and the face. A study published in Nature Medicine determined that "aerosol transmission is a potential mode of transmission for coronaviruses as well as influenza viruses and rhinoviruses." In the abstract, the authors state that "Surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets. Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals".

• "Our findings indicate that surgical masks can efficaciously reduce the emission of influenza virus particles into the environment in respiratory droplets, but not in aerosols."

For some real world data, a study in Health Affairs compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. The study's abstract states that their research "suggest that requiring face mask use in public could help in mitigating the spread of COVID-19," and some of the models in the study "suggested that because of these mandates, 230,000–450,000 cases may have been averted." Essentially, the Health Affairs study found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in daily COVID-19 growth rate, which became more apparent over time. Specifically, after controlling for things like social distancing, the researchers found that masks reduced the cases of COVID19 by 2% every day. Ultimately, "The study provides direct evidence on the effectiveness of widespread community use of face masks from a natural experiment that evaluated the effects of state government mandates in the US for face mask use in public on COVID-19 spread. Fifteen states plus Washington, D.C., mandated face mask use between April 8 and May 15. Using an event study that examined daily changes in county-level COVID-19 growth rates, the study found that mandating public use of face masks was associated with a reduction in the COVID-19 daily growth rate." Another real world examples comes from a Virginia Commonwealth University Department of Ophthalmology study found on Research Gate which looked at coronavirus deaths across almost 200 countries and found that those with cultural norms or government policies favoring mask-wearing had lower death rate. The authors state that, "These results support the universal wearing of masks by the public to suppress the spread of the coronavirus. Given the low levels of coronavirus mortality seen in the Asian countries which adopted widespread public mask usage early in the outbreak, it seems highly unlikely that masks are harmful." The study also identifies that, "societal norms and government policies supporting maskwearing by the public were independently associated with lower per-capita mortality from COVID-19. The use of masks in public is an important and readily modifiable public health measure." Research published in the Infectious Disease Modelling journal developed two baseline mathematical models that utilized mortality data compiled by John Hopkins University, with two U.S. states - New York and Washington - and found "that broad adoption of even relatively ineffective face masks may meaningfully reduce community transmission of COVID-19 and decrease peak hospitalizations and deaths." The effect is small, but nontrivial in the number of lives saved. The research states that "Notably, masks are found to be useful with respect to both preventing illness in healthy persons and preventing asymptomatic transmission" and in their models they find that in New York near universal adoption (80% of the population wearing a mask) of even moderately (50%) effective masks could prevent anywhere from 17-45% of the projected deaths, decrease the peak daily death rate by 34–58%, and decrease the mortality rate by 2-9% and in Washington near universal adoption of moderately effective masks could reduce mortality by 24–65%. Considering these numbers, the research states "Thus, a range of outcomes are possible, but both the absolute and relative benefit to weak masks can be quite large; when the relative benefit is small, the absolute benefit in terms of lives is still highly nontrivial." Figure 4 below shows the results of the models in the study, as does Figure 5.

Finally, we can look at some studies which show that wearing a mask can result in a milder infection, in addition to providing some protection against infection in the first place. One such study published in the Clinical Infectious Diseases journal infected hamsters with COVID19 (yeah kinda animal abuse maybe) and placed them in two different closed system cages with healthy hamsters. One of these cages had a surgical mask partition between the COVID19 hamsters and the healthy hamsters. The surgical mask partition signifgantly reduced infection rate and the hamsters exhibited milder symptoms. The authors conclude "SARS-CoV-2 could be transmitted by respiratory droplets or airborne droplet nuclei which could be reduced by surgical mask partition in the hamster model. This is the first in vivo experimental evidence to support the possible benefit of surgical mask in prevention of COVID-19 transmission, especially when masks were worn by infected individuals," and identify that the results of their experiment "supported the use of community-wide masking to reduce the amount of virus shedding from the asymptomatically infected patients and to protect susceptible individuals." I also like this quote from the study which sums up my ideas in the section rather well: "Masking is a continuous form of protection to stop the spreading of saliva and respiratory droplets to or from others, and to or from the environment to the susceptible individuals by hands through subconscious touching of their nose, mouth, and eyes."

Types of masks

Masks such as the N95 respirator masks are designed to remove more than 95% of all particles that are at least 0.3 microns (µm) in diameter and measurements of the particle filtration efficiency of N95 masks show that they are capable of filtering ≈99.8% of particles with a diameter of ≈0.1 μm. N95 is the United States standard whereas a FFP2 mask is the Eurpoean standard, which works basically just as well. Surgical masks are also significantly effective, as the results of studies "indicate that a surgical mask will reduce the exposure to aerosolized infectious influenza virus." One study has results which prove surgical masks provide roughly twice as much protection as homemade masks. The study states "Surgical masks provided about twice as much protection as home made masks." Essentially, N95/FFP2 masks work the best, then surgical masks, then homemade masks. Another study shows that a surgical mask (that filtered 89% of viral particles) was about three times better in controlling the viral transmission than that of a homemade mask. While homemade masks may not be as effective as the N95 or surgical masks, they still offer some protection, prevent spread, and are better than nothing.

A study from the Extreme Mechanics Letters journal (the full text of which can be viewed here) which looked at how efficient masks made out of different fabrics were at preventing spread of COVID19 found that "most fabrics have substantial blocking efficiency (median values >70%)," and "two layers of highly permeable fabric, such as T-shirt cloth, blocks droplets with an efficiency (>94%) similar to that of medical masks, while being approximately twice as breathable." The median value for blocking efficiency was 70%, meaning that your average fabric blocks 70% of particles from spraying all over the place. Fabrics with two layers have it at 94.1%, and those with 3 layers have it the highest at > 98.1%. Masks with two layers were also very breathable, so lack of oxygen should not be an issue. Overall, the study concludes that in the event of a mask shortage during a pandemic home made masks made of common fabrics with 2 layers "may help prevent the dissemination of droplets by infected individuals, and protect healthy individuals from inhaling droplets, with efficiencies similar to that of commercial medical masks." The results of the study can be viewed below in Figure 6.

Note that the use of masks are 2-fold: control the penetration of droplets from an infectious person into the respiratory tract of a susceptible host, or to control the droplets going out from an infected patient. Masks such as the N95, FFP2, and some surgical masks prevent the former and "homemade" masks, most fabric masks, and some surgical masks prevent the latter. Homemade masks, fabric masks, and most surgical masks are more used to prevent asymptomatic carriers from spreading the virus, meaning the mask will prevent potentially infected particles from traveling as far as they would if the infected person had no mask. A video study from the Chest Clinic which borrows data from a UNSW study provides a helpful visual aid (Figure 1 below). The video can be found here. So N95 masks prevent infection by filtering out droplets and particles that COVID19 could have attached itself to while homemade masks prevent spread and widespread dispersion of droplets and particles (Many anti-mask idiots will argue that cloth/homemade masks don't prevent a wearer from infection and see this as a sign that all masks don't work but this is stupid. Obviously a mask which isn't designed to prevent the wearer from infection, rather to prevent the wearer from spreading their own droplets and particles, would not prevent the wearer from infection). A quote from a large review of different studies which look at the effectiveness of masks against COVID19, aptly titled "Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Review" describes this quite well: "Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use to reduce community transmission: nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct droplets of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period post-infection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms; non-medical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of influenza; non-medical masks have been shown to be effective in small trials at blocking transmission of coronavirus; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission."

Masks also serve as a visual reminder for social distancing measures and all should wear them because should a mask be reserved solely for use in symptomatic patients, they become a symbol of illness and could lead to public stigmatization that discourages use, as has been described for patients with tuberculosis.

Addressing common stupid talking points and other thoughts on anti-mask folks

Most arguments against masks or other measures to minimize the impact of COVID-19 essentially boil down to "how come the health measures I didn't follow didn't work?"

Some idiots will bring up some anecdotal stuff like "well I never wore a mask and I never got COVID-19" as evidence that masks don't work. There are several things wrong with this statement. Firstly, the person could have gotten COVID19 and just displayed no symptoms, making them an asymptomatic carrier. Secondly masks generally don't prevent infection, rather they prevent spread. The reason this person did not get infected with COVID19 was likely due to all the other people they encountered who wore masks, thus "protecting" this no mask idiot so this person not getting COVID19 is actually proof masks work. You can think of this by replacing masks with hairnets and COVID19 with hair. Hairnets reduce the likelihood that a cook's hair from getting in food like masks reduce the risk droplets and particles spread. A cook does not wear a hairnet to prevent other people's hair from getting in their food and a person does not typically wear a mask to prevent other people's droplets and particles from getting in them. Imagine a big kitchen with hundreds of cooks, all of whom have long hair. If none of them wear hairnets there is a strong chance of hair ending up in food. If some of them wear hairnets it's less likely hair ends up in food. And if they are all wearing hairnets then there is a very slim chance of hair ending up in food. You'd rather eat food from a kitchen full of long haired chefs all wearing hairnets rather than a kitchen with a few long haired chefs without hairnets right? Same with masks. If everyone was maskless there would be a high chance of a large number of people being infected with COVID, if some wore masks that chance shrinks, and if all wear masks then that chance shrinks even more. So hairnets, like masks, are more effective the more people wear them. Both are non selfish (meaning you do it not to prevent something from happening to yourself but from happening to others) risk mitigation measures.

Saying "well I never wore a mask and I never got COVID19" as evidence that masks don't work would be like saying "I never cover my mouth when I sneeze or cough and I've never gotten the flu, therefore covering your mouth when sneezing or coughing does not prevent you from getting the flu." Duh. It's not supposed to protect you and only you in the first place. It's a measure meant to protect others.

Much of the anti mask movement boils down to people being selfish assholes who resent the fact the government is treating other peoples lives as equally valuable to theirs. in protesting against masks and COVID measures they’re basically saying “noooooo government give me special treatment because I think I’m more healthy than others and they deserve to die because I assume they’re less healthy than me.”

Making fun of people for wearing masks to stay healthy and calling them sheep is like making fun of people for wearing seatbelts to avoid getting in a car accident and calling them sheep - it’s a straw man which misrepresents the intent behind the action and refers to an imaginary person rather than anything based in reality.

Doctors and masks

The reason behind masking during a pandemic is pretty much the same reason why doctors and surgeons wear a mask during surgery: to "prevent large droplets of bodily fluids that may contain viruses or other germs from escaping via the nose and mouth," as per Healthline. Other websites like The Apprentice Doctor reiterate this idea and research from the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine states "Facemasks have long been thought to confer protection to the patient from wound infection and contamination from the operating surgeon and other members of the surgical staff." For regular folks in a pandemic masking serves to protect others one comes in contact with from potentially infected particles (masks mean less particles expelled and those particles don't travel very far) and for doctors this is to prevent germs and other particles from the surgeon getting inside the open wound of a patient that is being operated on, potentially causing infection. Basically, doctors and surgeons wear masks to prevent pathogens from coughing, sneezing, or talking from getting into the sterile area of surgery so there is no transfer of any pathogens from doctor/surgeon to patient. One study from the Journal of Orthopaedic Translation even found that surgical masks collect more bacteria from the doctor/surgeon wearing them over time which goes to show how masks are effective in reducing particle output. Sounds familiar, right? Even the dumbass Jim Meehan, a physician according to his website and an ophthalmologist according to Health US News and The Frontier (very much not an epidemiologist), recognizes this and states "surgeons do wear masks to prevent their respiratory droplets from contaminating the surgical field and the exposed internal tissues of our surgical patients" on his website.

Various systematic reviews

Various systematic reviews of research and studies similar to the ones above all reach the same conclusions: mask wearing is largely an effort to to reduce virus transmission and spread (rather than prevent or protect the wearer from infection themselves) and has a small, yet nontrivial effect in reducing transmission rates. Coupled with hand washing, it is effective in saving lives and maintaining health.

• Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Review"

  • "Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use to reduce community transmission: nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct droplets of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period post-infection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms; non-medical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of influenza; non-medical masks have been shown to be effective in small trials at blocking transmission of coronavirus; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission."

• The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence

  • "Some evidence suggests that mask use is best undertaken as part of a package of personal protection especially hand hygiene. The effectiveness of masks and respirators is likely linked to early, consistent and correct usage."

• Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • "Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12-16-layer cotton masks; p_interaction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty)."

• A rapid review of the use of face mask in preventing the spread of COVID-19

  • "Face masks use have shown a great potential for preventing respiratory virus transmission including COVID-19."

  • "Regardless of the type, setting, or who wears the face mask, it serves primarily a dual preventive purpose; protecting oneself from getting viral infection and protecting others. Therefore, if everyone wears a face mask in public, it offers a double barrier against COVID-19 transmission."

• A rapid systematic review of the efficacy of face masks and respirators against coronaviruses and other respiratory transmissible viruses for the community, healthcare workers and sick patients

  • "In the community, masks appeared to be effective with and without hand hygiene, and both together are more protective."

  • "The study suggests that community mask use by well people could be beneficial, particularly for COVID-19, where transmission may be pre-symptomatic."

  • "In summary, there is a growing body of evidence supporting all three indications for respiratory protection – community, healthcare workers and sick patients (source control)."

  • " Universal face mask use is likely to have the most impact on epidemic growth in the community, given the high risk of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission."

• A technical review of face mask wearing in preventing respiratory COVID-19 transmission

  • "Face mask wearing can block or filter airborne virus-carrying particles through the working of colloid and interface science. This paper assesses current knowledge behind the design and functioning of face masks by reviewing the selection of materials, mask specifications, relevant laboratory tests, and respiratory virus transmission trials, with an overview of future development of reusable masks for the general public. This review highlights the effectiveness of face mask wearing in the prevention of COVID-19 infection."

• An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19

  • "A primary route of transmission of COVID-19 is via respiratory particles, and it is known to be transmissible from presymptomatic, paucisymptomatic, and asymptomatic individuals. Reducing disease spread requires two things: limiting contacts of infected individuals via physical distancing and other measures and reducing the transmission probability per contact. The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high."

  • "Because many respiratory particles become smaller due to evaporation, we recommend increasing focus on a previously overlooked aspect of mask usage: mask wearing by infectious people ("source control") with benefits at the population level, rather than only mask wearing by susceptible people, such as health care workers, with focus on individual outcomes. We recommend that public officials and governments strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public, including the use of appropriate regulation."

• Community use of face masks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID-19: a rapid scoping review

  • "Our best estimate is that the effect of wearing a face mask is between the effects seen in RCTs and the effects seen in cohort studies, or around 6 to 15% reduction in disease transmission."

  • "Population level studies that consider COVID-19 spread before and after mask-wearing policies (and combinations of other control measures) were introduced in various localities have more often than not concluded that mask-wearing mandates or recommendations seemed to accelerate epidemic decline in early 2020."

TL;DR The CDC estimates (here is another CDC link with that same info) that there have been 337,000 flu deaths in the United States between 2010-2019. As of January 12th, 2021, roughly one year since the first case of COVID19 was reported in the US (the first reported case was on January 20th) the virus has killed roughly 379,444 Americans, per Johns Hopkins. The CDC reports the virus has killed roughly 375,124 people. So, COVID19 has killed about the same number of Americans, if not more, in a year as the flu does in nine years.

Furthermore, 9% of those infected with COVID19 require hospitalization whereas only 1.8% (808,129 hospitalizations / 44,802,630 cases in the 2017-18 flu season multiplied by 100 = 1.8), of people with the flu require hospitalization. Looking at the percentage of cases that end in death in America, the current (as of August 3rd, 2021, calculated with data from Johns Hopkins that is preserved thanks to the Wayback Machine) percentage is 1.74% for COVID-19 and the percentage for the flu in American from 2010-2019 was 0.55% (according to the CDC). Looking at mortality rate, COVID-19 has a mortality rate of ~184.3 (using that same John Hopkins data and dividing the total COVID-19 deaths in the us by the population and multiplying that by 100,000) and according to the CDC the mortality rate for the flu was 15.2 in 2019.

THE BELOW IS OLD MATH AND OLD DATA I HAVE NOT TOUCHED IN SOME TIME SO JUST STICK WITH THE DATA ABOVE THIS BOLDED SECTION. I AM KEEPING THE MATH HERE JUST SO I CAN REMEBER THE FORMULAS I USED IF I EVER WANT TO CALCULATE SOMETHING SIMILAR AGAIN.

13x deadlier than the flu to all people*

12.5x deadlier than the flu to healthy people with no underlying health conditions**

21.7x deadlier than the flu to people with underlying health conditions***

Furthermore, 20% of those infected with COVID19 require hospitalization whereas only 1.8% (808,129 hospitalizations / 44,802,630 cases in the 2017-18 flu season multiplied by 100 = 1.8), of those with the flu require hospitalization. Looking at mortality rates, the morality rate of COVID19 in 2020 was ~114.5 (deaths per 100,000) and the morality rate of the flu in 2017-18 was ~18.7 (deaths per 100,000). You can calculate these mortality rates yourself by dividing the total number of COVID19 or flu deaths by the population in the given year (2020 for COVID19, somewhere in-between 2017-18 for the flu) and multiplying that number by 100,000.

Data for COVID19 infections and deaths and flu infections and deaths from 2017-18 in the US both come from the CDC. As of March 26th, 2021 there have been Thus far there have been 29,903,245 COVID19 cases in the US and 543,975 deaths in the US, meaning 1.82% of cases result in death. In the 2017-18 flu season there were 45,000,000 cases and 61,000 deaths in the US, meaning 0.14% of infections result in death. Here's the math:

(543,975/29,903,245) x 100 = 1.82% (*of COVID19 infections result in death)

(61,000/45,000,000) x 100 = 0.14% (*of flu infections result in death)

0.135 x 13 = 2.81

According to the CDC 94% of COVID19 deaths are in people with underlying health conditions and according to a study published in Pharmacy & Therapeutics journal, 90% of flu deaths are in people with underlying health conditions. So...

209,560 x .06 = 12,573

(12,573/7,436,278) x 100 = 0.169% (**of COVID19 deaths in people without underlying health conditions)

61,000 x .1 = 6,100

(6,100/45,000,000) x 100 = 0.0135% (**of flu deaths in people without underlying health conditions)

0.0135 x 12.5 = 0.169

Now, looking at people with underlying health conditions

209,560 x .94 = 196,986

(196,986/7,436,278) x 100 = 2.65% (***of COVID19 deaths in people with underlying health conditions)

61,000 x .9 = 54,900

(54,900/45,000,000) x 100 = 0.122% (***of flu deaths in people with underlying health conditions)

0.122 x 21.7 = 2.65

Another misconception idiots spread around is the idea that the number of COVID19 deaths are being inflated. But when looking at how the number of weekly deaths in the US this year are vastly greater than average, we can see that this is likely not the case. Many more people are dying in 2020 on a weekly and monthly basis than previous years and COVID19 is the main cause. Sorry, idiots.

Weekly deaths

The CDC reports that 2,839,205 people in the US died in 2018, meaning on average 54,600 people died on a weekly basis. The CDC reports that 2,813,503 people in the US died in 2017, meaning on average 54,105 people died on a weekly basis. That is a 0.91% increase in weekly deaths from 2017-2019. The CDC reports that 2,744,248 people in the US died in 2016, meaning an average of 52,774 people died on a weekly basis. That is a 2.5% increase in weekly deaths from 2016-2017. The CDC reports that 2,712,630 people died in 2015, meaning on average 52,166 people died on a weekly basis. That is a 1.2% increase in weekly deaths from 2015-2016. Thus, it is evident that the average weekly death rate should rise by an average of 1.5% every year (0.91 + 2.5 + 1.2 = 4.61 / 3 = 1.5). Using this we can determine that there would be an increase of 819 weekly deaths from 2018-2019 for an average of 55,419 and then an increase of 831 deaths from 2019-2020 so on average 2020 should have ~56,000 weekly deaths, on average. So we can safely assume that an average of ~56,500 people should be dying in the US every week in 2020. Now, why is this important? - Because the weekly death totals throughout 2020 in the age of COVID19 in America have been ~3,000 to 20,000 more than the national weekly average. The first COVID19 death in America occurred in February and since then the number of weekly deaths have been largely above average. The weekly death count first hit sixty thousand, 62,894 to be exact, in late March and grew to as many as 78,915 weekly deaths in April. For pretty much all of April, more than seventy thousand people were dying per week in America (that's ~20,000 more than the national average). While the death count decreased in June it started rising in July and well into August. Throughout March, April, and May the weekly number of deaths in the US was ~20,000-10,000 more than average and throughout July and August the weekly number of deaths in the US was ~7,000 more than average. Throughout September and October the weekly number of deaths was ~3,000 more than average. So why are so many more people dying than the national average if not as a result of COVID19? What is killing Americans in higher weekly numbers than previous years if it's not COVID19? Both of these questions are obviously rhetorical, as COVID19 is an obviously explanation as to why so many more Americans are dying than average.

TL;DR: Using trends in the increase of weekly deaths in the US from 2015-2018 it is evident that the weekly death count in the US in 2020 should be around ~56,000. However, the weekly average is well over that total, even reaching a high of almost 79,000 deaths in a week in April 2020, around the time of the coronavirus being present in America. Thus, because of the increase in weekly deaths that are well above national average it's evident that COVID19 is killing Americans.

For a more specific example of COVID19's effect on death counts, we can look at the monthly deaths in Michigan from 2000-2020, comparing the 2018 and 2019 numbers to 2020 numbers. In 2018, an average of 8,132 people died every month. In 2019, an average of 8,137 people died every month. Thus far into 2020, an average of 9,279 people have died every month (note that I exclude the data from September as the research was published October 2nd and they would not have had time to accumulate all September deaths). So between 2018 and 2019 only 5 more deaths occurred every month, on average. But between 2019 and 2020 1,142 more deaths occurred every month, on average. How can this be explained? - COVID19. Additionally, when comparing the number of deaths each month (again, excluding September) from 2020 to 2019, the 2020 months always had more deaths. Most notably, April 2020 had 5,062 more deaths than 2019 April. This tracks with the aforementioned data from the CDC where an enormous amount of deaths occur in April. So again, more people are dying in 2020 than usual and COVID19 is to blame. No death counts are being inflated, it's just that more people are dying. And they're dying because of COVID19.

CDC exaggerating deaths?

Idiots like to say that COVID deaths are exaggerated, mostly because “deaths” includes anyone who died but had COVID, and thus they’re counted as having have died of COVID. This is dumb. We've already established the very high rates at which COVID kills people in the above section "No it's not just like the flu" and you can also view a chart from a Scientific American article which shows that COVID killed people at similar rates as cancer and heart disease (see Figure 7 below). Some may still argue that people who have died of COVID have preexisting conditions, but that’s now how it works, according to Justin Lessler, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: “When we ask if COVID killed somebody, it means ‘Did they die sooner than they would have if they didn't have the virus?' Even a person with a potentially life-shortening condition such as heart disease may have lived another five, 10 or more years, had they not become infected with COVID-19." COVID can amplify negative effects on someone’s health that lead to them dying. They aren't dying from that condition though, it's COVID that kills them (like if you have hemophilia and get stabbed, its the knife/stabbing that killed you not the hemophilia). Some will still point to only 6% of COVID deaths actually being caused by COVID but that's not how it works either: The inaccurate idea that only 6 percent of the deaths were really caused by the coronavirus is “a gross misinterpretation” of how death certificates work, says Robert Anderson, chief mortality statistician at the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. Medical conditions such as diabetes or heart disease are common comorbidities, and they can make a person more vulnerable to the coronavirus, Anderson says, “but the fact is: they're not dying from that preexisting condition.”

Please check out the image right below this section which shows death rates and deaths per 100,000 in 2020 compared to the past decade for more evidence that there are a hell of a lot more people dying in 2020 than usual.

This is a comment often made by idiots who don't understand the severity of a new virus which our bodies have never been exposed to, which no one's immune system has built up to it yet, which has no vaccine, and which the long term effects of contracting is are relatively unknown. It is both ignorant and dumb. Cancer is a pretty deadly disease which you need to be tested (screened) to know if you have it. Tuberculous is also a very deadly disease and there are two types of tests - a skin and blood test - to determine whether or not an individual has it. Malaria is also a pretty bad disease and, surprise, there are also tests used to determine if an individual has malaria.

If the metric for whether or not something is serious is whether or not you need to be tested to know you have it, there really are no deadly illnesses or viruses in the world today. Hence why this logic is dumb.

Based on this logic, HIV should not be feared at all and no one should wear condoms or have any protections during sexual activity because in 2018 HIV killed just 1.5% of people infected with it ([15,820 HIV deaths in the US in 2018/ 1,040,352 diagnosed cases in the US in 2018] x 100 = 1.52). And as stated above, death is not the only result of contracting COVID19 and long term effects are relatively unknown.

The tweet seen below in Figure 12 is very dumb and thus annoying. This person apparently doesn't understand things. Or at least they are pretending not to for attention or money or something. In reality masks, vaccines, lockdowns, etc… do very different things so to expect one of them to just magically make the problem go away or magically achieve something is very dumb. Putting an engine in a car doesn't make the car work and simply exercising doesn't make someone healthy the same way just wearing masks or only getting vaccinated doesn't magically end a pandemic.

Here is the difference between lockdowns, masks, and vaccines and how they do different things to achieve a similar goal of keeping people healthy, safe, and alive: If no one leaves their house for any reason they’re not getting in contact with the virus. But we can’t just force everyone in their homes for months until a vaccine is developed, we still need to have a society. That’s where the masks come in. Masks allow people to go about their day at work or shopping or whatever with a reduced risk of transmitting the virus if they have it, thus reducing the risk of others getting the virus. Vaccines then work to make people less sick so there are better health outcomes and vaccinated people who contract the virus aren't dying or in need of hospitalization. Lockdowns keep people safe from even potentially having the chance to come in contact with the virus and create time for governments, businesses, and other organizations to figure out how to move forward. Masks reduce the chance of the virus being spread. Vaccines reduce the change of negative health outcomes and death is someone does contract the virus. Each contributes to reducing the impact of a virus in their own way.

I have applied this same dumb logic to some different things so we can all see how dumb it is:

Football and player safety

If the helmets work…then why the penalties for unnecessary hits?

If the penalties work…then why the ejections?

If ejections work…then why the fines?

If the fines work…then why teach fundamental tackling?

If teaching fundamental tackling works...then why the helmets?

As you can see this logic is very dumb because each thing named does a different thing to achieve the same goal of keeping players safe. Helmets reduce impact and prevent skull fractures. Penalties punish teams for putting opposing players or even their own players at risk of a head related injury. The ejections and fines de-incentivize players for playing recklessly. The tackling fundamentals aim to teach players how to tackle in a way that reduces the risk for injury.

Health

If exercise works…then why eat healthy foods?

If eating healthy food works…then why take multivitamins or supplements?

If taking multivitamins and supplements work…why worry about how much sleep you get?

If getting good sleep help…why stay hydrated?

If staying hydrated works…why exercise?

Driving

If seatbelts work...then why the air bags?

If air bags work...then why the speed limits?

If speed limits work...then why the turn signals?

If turn signals work...then why the seatbelts?

But that's conservatives for you. Here they're once again showing how simple minded and stupid they are by expecting one thing is just be a cure all for a problem.

Idiots from both sides of the political isle, but mainly conservative idiots, have taken issue with the idea their lives as "healthy" people are being treated as just as important and with the same amount of value as the lives of "unhealthy" people and those with pre-existing or underlying conditions by the US government throughout the pandemic. You'll usually see this expressed in rhetoric like " quarantine is restricting the movement of sick people and tyranny is when healthy people, have their movement restricted" or "the best defense against COVID-19 is being healthy and having an immune system," or "my mask is on the inside, it's called an immune system." This is easily debunked by the fact that many athletes contracted COVID-19 and Cleveland Browns edge player Myles Garret even said the virus kicked his ass.

All of this essentially is complaining that the US government sees the lives of these "healthy" people as equal in value to the lives of who these idiots deem as "unhealthy." The argument boils down to "waaaaah why should I have to do this? I'm better than other people so I deserve preferential treatment by my government and every other aspect of society." They're literally complaining that the government isn't treating them better than those they deem "unhealthy," even if these "unhealthy" people were born with an underlying condition that puts them at greater risk. In America people have the freedom to eat fast food all the time, smoke, never work out, et cetera but that doesn't mean the government should care less about their lives because they take advantage of these certain freedoms. These idiots would gladly allow the death of someone who was born with diabetes or some other underlying health condition if it means they aren't slightly inconvenienced throughout their day.

This is just another way conservatives show us how much they hate equality.

On March 26th 2021 a $1.9 trillion dollar COVID-19 relief bill was passed despite no Republican voting yes on the bill. Here are some highlights on what the bill provides for Americans during the pandemic, taken from a Fox News article:

• $1,400 stimulus checks for individuals earning up to $75,000 and $2,800 checks for couples earning $150,000 or under. Households will receive an additional $1,400 for each dependent child.

• $300-per-week enhanced federal benefits through Sept. 6 for unemployed people and allows the first $10,200 of jobless benefits to be tax-free to households with incomes under $150,000.

• "Child allowance" payments worth upwards of $300 per month for each child under the age of six, or $3,600 a year. For older children up to age 17, families would get $3,000 a year in the new child tax credit program.

• Hundreds of billions for COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, schools, food programs, rental assistance and ailing industries from airlines to concert halls.

• It is worth noting that while some felons will be able to receive a stimulus check, they received both the $1,200 and $600 payments approved by the GOP-controlled Senate and former President Donald Trump.

In addition to the aforementioned parts of the bill it also:

• Includes $14 billion for vaccine distribution; $49 billion for COVID-19 testing, tracing and genomic sequencing; and $8 billion to expand the public health workforce.

• The Bill will expand the number of middle-class Americans who have access to healthcare by helping with the cost.

• Delivers a $350 billion cash infusion to state and local governments, and $130 billion to elementary, middle and high schools to help them re-open safely.

• Includes an additional $50 billion in assistance for small businesses, including more than $7 billion for the troubled Payment Protection Program.

• Includes $28.6 billion in grant relief specifically for restaurants, which have been particularly decimated by the pandemic. Strangely, a Republican senator tweeted his support of this portion of the bill despite voting no on it.

There is broad public support for this bill, with 70% of Americans being in favor of the bill according to the PEW Research Center.

“This legislation is about giving the backbone of this nation — the essential workers, the working people who built this country, the people who keep this country going — a fighting chance,” Biden said in a statement.

“Complying” with wearing a mask is like “complying” with limited car trips during World War II to conserve gas and rubber for the war effort. It’s inconveniencing yourself in a minor way so you and other Americans can benefit in the long run.

While conservatives will argue against COVID-19 measures because of abstract constructs like tyranny and racist or decry them because of “compliance” or taking away freedoms it’s evident that they really don’t care about these things, they just don’t like being inconvenienced themselves and are very selfish. They’ll make arguments like “oh why are we focusing on COVID-19 when the real health crisis is obesity and fast food” or “we should be teaching people to work out and not eat junk food.” But then if this happened - government funded programs, commercials, and talking heads telling people to eat healthy and be more active - they should still have a problem with it, assuming they were to remained logically consistent. That would still be “brainwashing” people with “propaganda” and telling them what to think and making them comply with tyranny since they don’t have a choice whether or not they want to be lazy and east fast food or not. Obviously wouldn’t remain logically consistent because other people not eating as much fast food doesn’t inconvenience them like having to wear a piece of fabric over their mouth and nose in public does. Yeah, it’s such a little thing but these people are so fragile that they think any inconvenience to their lives is some huge deal and will throw a fit about it, even if that fit extends the time they will be inconvenienced.

Most instances of COVID-19 in the media - whether that be news segments, advertisements encouraging people to wear a mask or get vaccinated, tweets and comments from people - is about as fear mongering as coverage of seatbelts and drunk driving in the media. Very few people are scared or afraid to not have a mask on, rather they’re just engaging in risk mitigation by wearing a mask or getting vaccinated the same way people engage in risk mitigation when they put on a seatbelt or call a designated driver to drive them home after drinking

• Perhaps conservatives see it as fear mongering because they are most influenced by fear mongering (more on that under the “Fear is the Mind Killer'' section on the Modern Conservatism tab) and assume liberals are motivated by fear as well? Or maybe they’re just trying to look cool and get attention in the same way a kid would proclaim that they’re not afraid to try and look cool.