This whole "pandemic" has been manipulated by the politicians and bureaucrats the meet their narratives and agendas. Basing your conclusions on inaccurate numbers is going to give you an inaccurate picture of what is really going on. Your conclusions are at best anecdotal.
Even the WND article this thread is based on, suggests masks aren't the answer. "Natural immunity, sensible precautions and early treatment" are what the author advocates.
I don't know where you get your data from but the creators of the most commonly used test to determine whether you are infected or not, and therefore whether a person is a new case or not, openly admit that the tests for the corona virus are notoriously unreliable in their results:
So right off the bat, the numbers used to determine new cases, are dodgy at best. Inaccurate and unreliable at worst.
On another thread on FR today, Senator Rand Paul explains why he thinks masks are not useful. He talks about a study in the last month from Stanford. In 10 different countries where mask mandates and other virus control measures where in effect, there was no evidence that the mask or the other things made a difference in the trajectory of the virus which had been growing exponentially. Almost everybody getting infected said they were wearing a mask almost all of the time before they got infected.
But I keep coming back to the underlying reasons why people like you think people ought to wear masks and why they work.
Environmental economist Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, believes in climate change. But he says that it is not a problem the world should be spending their money on to solve. He says that if we spent all of the wealth of in the world on nothing else but climate change, it would yield such negligible results, as to be imperceptible.
And likewise, why are we spending all of this time, money and wasted effort on stopping a virus that at best will only kill less than one quarter of one percent of the population (.02%), with 80% of those deaths being people over 70 years old who are entering the years when most people are susceptible to dying of old age issues and other complications anyway? Like I said before, we are spending a dollar to try and save a nickel.
I suspect that I will never convince you of what you already believe in. I've seen your comments and postings on other threads on FR about this same subject. You remind me of why I don't argue with climate change believers.
You're good at numbers it looks like, though you wade way too far into the long weeds for my liking. But you fail to see the practical implications and ramifications of those numbers. I suspect in another life you would be named Karen and would be the head of what I call the Fellowship of the Perpetual Mask Wearers sect or cult.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
This whole "pandemic" has been manipulated by the politicians and bureaucrats the meet their narratives and agendas. Basing your conclusions on inaccurate numbers is going to give you an inaccurate picture of what is really going on. Your conclusions are at best anecdotal.
Sorry, but I don't get into conspiracy theories. I prefer solid data, such as the numbers that have been compiled by public health agencies.
"Natural immunity, sensible precautions and early treatment" are what the author advocates.
If "natural immunity" worked so well, no one would have ever thought of trying to stop infectious diseases. In reality, people have been more likely to die of infectious disease than any other cause throughout most of history. The author is a quack, who is probably trying to sell snake oil and/or useless books.