Coronavirus General Discussion

[doodle]

CDC study show 85% of Covid cases were people who Often or Always wear masks.

Rewrite that. "CDC shows mask wearing prevents 15% of cases"

Does that sound better? Currently there's about 7.83M cases, 215k deaths, .02746 CFR. If we prevented 15% of those cases with 100% mask usage (1.1745M), possibly could have saved (doing the math), ~32,250 deaths of the 215k so far.

I think I did that right.

Is that not a good enough reason?

There are around 6 million auto accidents every year in US and approximately 40,000 deaths. Perhaps that number would be 4 times greater in the absence of seatbelt laws. The big difference is that seat belt laws protect your own life..which I can see the argument against...whereas mask laws are meant to protect others lives. I don't understand how wearing a mask is being seen as a 'personal choice's whereas no one is up in arms about seatbelt laws...where it is in fact a personal choice.

[jalanlong]

CDC study show 85% of Covid cases were people who Often or Always wear masks.

Rewrite that. "CDC shows mask wearing prevents 15% of cases"

Does that sound better? Currently there's about 7.83M cases, 215k deaths, .02746 CFR. If we prevented 15% of those cases with 100% mask usage (1.1745M), possibly could have saved (doing the math), ~32,250 deaths of the 215k so far.

I think I did that right.

Is that not a good enough reason?

There are around 6 million auto accidents every year in US and approximately 40,000 deaths. Perhaps that number would be 4 times greater in the absence of seatbelt laws. The big difference is that seat belt laws protect your own life..which I can see the argument against...whereas mask laws are meant to protect others lives. I don't understand how wearing a mask is being seen as a 'personal choice's whereas no one is up in arms about seatbelt laws...where it is in fact a personal choice.

Seat belt requirements (for the front seat) went into effect in Texas in 1985 when I was a teenager. I can assure you that there were many, many people up in arms about it. My father steadfastly refused to wear one. He tried all sorts of trickery to get around wearing them. But over time, like most government laws people dislike, people saw that they are not going away and they just adjust.

I guess I was a libertarian teen and didn't even know it because at the age of 17 I was already thinking to myself "why is it a politician's responsibility to protect me if I want to do something that is risky to me?"

[doodle]

CDC study show 85% of Covid cases were people who Often or Always wear masks.

Rewrite that. "CDC shows mask wearing prevents 15% of cases"

Does that sound better? Currently there's about 7.83M cases, 215k deaths, .02746 CFR. If we prevented 15% of those cases with 100% mask usage (1.1745M), possibly could have saved (doing the math), ~32,250 deaths of the 215k so far.

I think I did that right.

Is that not a good enough reason?

There are around 6 million auto accidents every year in US and approximately 40,000 deaths. Perhaps that number would be 4 times greater in the absence of seatbelt laws. The big difference is that seat belt laws protect your own life..which I can see the argument against...whereas mask laws are meant to protect others lives. I don't understand how wearing a mask is being seen as a 'personal choice's whereas no one is up in arms about seatbelt laws...where it is in fact a personal choice.

Seat belt requirements (for the front seat) went into effect in Texas in 1985 when I was a teenager. I can assure you that there were many, many people up in arms about it. My father steadfastly refused to wear one. He tried all sorts of trickery to get around wearing them. But over time, like most government laws people dislike, people saw that they are not going away and they just adjust.

I guess I was a libertarian teen and didn't even know it because at the age of 17 I was already thinking to myself "why is it a politician's responsibility to protect me if I want to do something that is risky to me?"

I think it's a bit more complicated than that though...and a lot of it comes down to the issues of living in a society. If you have insurance and are not wearing a seat belt I don't believe they will cover your medical expenses...but as a society we don't just let you die in your car...we have decided to take it upon ourselves to rescue you. So society then incurs the cost of your poor decision. If you spend years in a vegetative state or need all kinds of surgery that cost falls on society and so seatbelt laws are a way of saying if you are going to engage in dangerous activities like driving a car then if you get injured you can't just expect us to pick up the expenses of fixing you if you won't even take the most basic measures to protect yourself.

[doodle]

But again, masks arent like seat belts. It would be like if you didn't wear your seat belt, you would become a projectile and kill the person in the other vehicle. In that case it isn't a personal choice.

[vnatale]

CDC study show 85% of Covid cases were people who Often or Always wear masks.

Rewrite that. "CDC shows mask wearing prevents 15% of cases"

Does that sound better? Currently there's about 7.83M cases, 215k deaths, .02746 CFR. If we prevented 15% of those cases with 100% mask usage (1.1745M), possibly could have saved (doing the math), ~32,250 deaths of the 215k so far.

I think I did that right.

Is that not a good enough reason?

There are around 6 million auto accidents every year in US and approximately 40,000 deaths. Perhaps that number would be 4 times greater in the absence of seatbelt laws. The big difference is that seat belt laws protect your own life..which I can see the argument against...whereas mask laws are meant to protect others lives. I don't understand how wearing a mask is being seen as a 'personal choice's whereas no one is up in arms about seatbelt laws...where it is in fact a personal choice.

Do you think that seatbelt laws could have been passed in today's political climate? We've had mandatory motorcycle helmet laws in Massachusetts for decades and decades. Some of the "freedom" people don't like that. In our neighboring "live free of die" state of New Hampshire I believe that they still have no such laws.

Vinny

[doodle]

CDC study show 85% of Covid cases were people who Often or Always wear masks.

Rewrite that. "CDC shows mask wearing prevents 15% of cases"

Does that sound better? Currently there's about 7.83M cases, 215k deaths, .02746 CFR. If we prevented 15% of those cases with 100% mask usage (1.1745M), possibly could have saved (doing the math), ~32,250 deaths of the 215k so far.

I think I did that right.

Is that not a good enough reason?

There are around 6 million auto accidents every year in US and approximately 40,000 deaths. Perhaps that number would be 4 times greater in the absence of seatbelt laws. The big difference is that seat belt laws protect your own life..which I can see the argument against...whereas mask laws are meant to protect others lives. I don't understand how wearing a mask is being seen as a 'personal choice's whereas no one is up in arms about seatbelt laws...where it is in fact a personal choice.

Do you think that seatbelt laws could have been passed in today's political climate? We've had mandatory motorcycle helmet laws in Massachusetts for decades and decades. Some of the "freedom" people don't like that. In our neighboring "live free of die" state of New Hampshire I believe that they still have no such laws.

Vinny

I often didn't wear a helmet when riding...and many times the helmets that people do wear to fulfill law are insufficient at really protecting head. That said, I don't see how one gets around the issue that as long as we live in a society which takes it upon itself to medically treat individuals for injuries they can't afford, we have the right to exert influence. The problem with libertarians is that they completely negate the concept of society and that is not realistic. No one wants to live in a society where a person just lays dying on the street or in some holding room while doctors sit around playing cards waiting for a paying patient with money.

[doodle]

I'm addition, as long as taxpayers and society pay for roads and the issuance of licenses (driving is not a constitutional right) then they have the right to make the rules concerning it...and if seatbelts are a rule that society deems to be necessary so be it.

[doodle]

Breathing and masks could be understood in terms of negative externalities. If you have a virus and live alone on island, then there is no negative externality from your breathing. When your airspace interferes with mine and I'm forced to breathe in your viral pollution it's on you to contain it. Just as companies can't spew toxins into public airspace, neither do you have a right to spew your virally loaded droplets into mine.

[jalanlong]

But again, masks arent like seat belts. It would be like if you didn't wear your seat belt, you would become a projectile and kill the person in the other vehicle. In that case it isn't a personal choice.

I think the argument that masks are like seat belts is still rooted in the thought that government is forcing the individual to do something for their own good and for some perceived benefit to society. Masks allow them to change the narrative a bit and claim you are protecting others as they are protecting you. But the moral and philosophical argument still stands: is it right that one person is subject to the force of government to do something that may be against their will in order to protect themselves and someone else from something that may possibly happen?

[Libertarian666]

But again, masks arent like seat belts. It would be like if you didn't wear your seat belt, you would become a projectile and kill the person in the other vehicle. In that case it isn't a personal choice.

I think the argument that masks are like seat belts is still rooted in the thought that government is forcing the individual to do something for their own good and for some perceived benefit to society. Masks allow them to change the narrative a bit and claim you are protecting others as they are protecting you. But the moral and philosophical argument still stands: is it right that one person is subject to the force of government to do something that may be against their will in order to protect themselves and someone else from something that may possibly happen?

That's easy: no.

[jalanlong]

CDC study show 85% of Covid cases were people who Often or Always wear masks.

Rewrite that. "CDC shows mask wearing prevents 15% of cases"

Does that sound better? Currently there's about 7.83M cases, 215k deaths, .02746 CFR. If we prevented 15% of those cases with 100% mask usage (1.1745M), possibly could have saved (doing the math), ~32,250 deaths of the 215k so far.

I think I did that right.

Is that not a good enough reason?

There are around 6 million auto accidents every year in US and approximately 40,000 deaths. Perhaps that number would be 4 times greater in the absence of seatbelt laws. The big difference is that seat belt laws protect your own life..which I can see the argument against...whereas mask laws are meant to protect others lives. I don't understand how wearing a mask is being seen as a 'personal choice's whereas no one is up in arms about seatbelt laws...where it is in fact a personal choice.

Do you think that seatbelt laws could have been passed in today's political climate? We've had mandatory motorcycle helmet laws in Massachusetts for decades and decades. Some of the "freedom" people don't like that. In our neighboring "live free of die" state of New Hampshire I believe that they still have no such laws.

Vinny

I don't see how one gets around the issue that as long as we live in a society which takes it upon itself to medically treat individuals for injuries they can't afford, we have the right to exert influence.

You are using the system that statists created to justify even more statism. Libertarians would not have created a system whereby tax payers have to pay any medical bill for anyone else by government force. Therefore you cannot use that as justification as to why they should now have to accept even more laws that dictate behavior in order to mitigate losses from that system.

[Libertarian666]

CDC study show 85% of Covid cases were people who Often or Always wear masks.

Rewrite that. "CDC shows mask wearing prevents 15% of cases"

Does that sound better? Currently there's about 7.83M cases, 215k deaths, .02746 CFR. If we prevented 15% of those cases with 100% mask usage (1.1745M), possibly could have saved (doing the math), ~32,250 deaths of the 215k so far.

I think I did that right.

Is that not a good enough reason?

There are around 6 million auto accidents every year in US and approximately 40,000 deaths. Perhaps that number would be 4 times greater in the absence of seatbelt laws. The big difference is that seat belt laws protect your own life..which I can see the argument against...whereas mask laws are meant to protect others lives. I don't understand how wearing a mask is being seen as a 'personal choice's whereas no one is up in arms about seatbelt laws...where it is in fact a personal choice.

Do you think that seatbelt laws could have been passed in today's political climate? We've had mandatory motorcycle helmet laws in Massachusetts for decades and decades. Some of the "freedom" people don't like that. In our neighboring "live free of die" state of New Hampshire I believe that they still have no such laws.

Vinny

I don't see how one gets around the issue that as long as we live in a society which takes it upon itself to medically treat individuals for injuries they can't afford, we have the right to exert influence.

You are using the system that statists created to justify even more statism. Libertarians would not have created a system whereby tax payers have to pay any medical bill for anyone else by government force. Therefore you cannot use that as justification as to why they should now have to accept even more laws that dictate behavior in order to mitigate losses from that system.

Exactly.

[jalanlong]

I'm addition, as long as taxpayers and society pay for roads and the issuance of licenses (driving is not a constitutional right) then they have the right to make the rules concerning it...and if seatbelts are a rule that society deems to be necessary so be it.

So then if society suddenly decided tomorrow that soda, candy and cakes should be illegal, then I assume you would wholeheartedly support the banning of those correct? Because society has deemed them damaging to health (in certain cases) and since we all have to pay for healthcare others cannot afford then any foods society deems unhealthy need to go in order to cut the chances of adverse health outcomes.

Should we also go ahead and dictate how much television people watch, how much exercise we require from individuals each day and measure how much sunscreen they put on before allowing them outside? Because we are all in this together right? Really there is no end to the rules we could impose upon each other since society is paying for almost everything these days.

[doodle]

CDC study show 85% of Covid cases were people who Often or Always wear masks.

Rewrite that. "CDC shows mask wearing prevents 15% of cases"

Does that sound better? Currently there's about 7.83M cases, 215k deaths, .02746 CFR. If we prevented 15% of those cases with 100% mask usage (1.1745M), possibly could have saved (doing the math), ~32,250 deaths of the 215k so far.

I think I did that right.

Is that not a good enough reason?

There are around 6 million auto accidents every year in US and approximately 40,000 deaths. Perhaps that number would be 4 times greater in the absence of seatbelt laws. The big difference is that seat belt laws protect your own life..which I can see the argument against...whereas mask laws are meant to protect others lives. I don't understand how wearing a mask is being seen as a 'personal choice's whereas no one is up in arms about seatbelt laws...where it is in fact a personal choice.

Do you think that seatbelt laws could have been passed in today's political climate? We've had mandatory motorcycle helmet laws in Massachusetts for decades and decades. Some of the "freedom" people don't like that. In our neighboring "live free of die" state of New Hampshire I believe that they still have no such laws.

Vinny

I don't see how one gets around the issue that as long as we live in a society which takes it upon itself to medically treat individuals for injuries they can't afford, we have the right to exert influence.

You are using the system that statists created to justify even more statism. Libertarians would not have created a system whereby tax payers have to pay any medical bill for anyone else by government force. Therefore you cannot use that as justification as to why they should now have to accept even more laws that dictate behavior in order to mitigate losses from that system.

I think I'm starting to see why KBG says he doesn't discuss things with libertarians anymore. I think libertarians share many similarities with communists in that both philosophies misunderstand the relationship between individuals and collective society.

I'd love to see a simulation of this utopia with multiple competing road and utility networks free from any centralized oversight or planning. A world where there is government protection for imagined collective corporate structures that will function solely for the betterment of humankind if solely left alone. You guys inhabit a fantasy world as to the nature of humans.

[Cortopassi]

I'm addition, as long as taxpayers and society pay for roads and the issuance of licenses (driving is not a constitutional right) then they have the right to make the rules concerning it...and if seatbelts are a rule that society deems to be necessary so be it.

So then if society suddenly decided tomorrow that soda, candy and cakes should be illegal, then I assume you would wholeheartedly support the banning of those correct? Because society has deemed them damaging to health (in certain cases) and since we all have to pay for healthcare others cannot afford then any foods society deems unhealthy need to go in order to cut the chances of adverse health outcomes.

Should we also go ahead and dictate how much television people watch, how much exercise we require from individuals each day and measure how much sunscreen they put on before allowing them outside? Because we are all in this together right? Really there is no end to the rules we could impose upon each other since society is paying for almost everything these days.

I don't know if this is the same line, but Cook County, IL imposed a soda tax a while back. There was an uproar. It was eventually removed.

Isn't that the avenue for society to deal with rules? Enough people don't like some rule, they protest, vote people in with their views, get things changed, etc.

So if you live in a state or city that has imposed rules you don't like, you are 1) free to move 2) free to protest 3) free to mobilize people to get things changed.

We are talking a piece of cloth here. I know many of you are oh my God, slippery slope, but c'mon.

You want to live in that world where, hey, you weren't wearing a belt, and were ejected from your car and you are left bleeding on the street because, hey, that was your choice or you better have an insurance card in your pocket otherwise we ain't gonna try and save you? Ok.

[jalanlong]

I'm addition, as long as taxpayers and society pay for roads and the issuance of licenses (driving is not a constitutional right) then they have the right to make the rules concerning it...and if seatbelts are a rule that society deems to be necessary so be it.

So then if society suddenly decided tomorrow that soda, candy and cakes should be illegal, then I assume you would wholeheartedly support the banning of those correct? Because society has deemed them damaging to health (in certain cases) and since we all have to pay for healthcare others cannot afford then any foods society deems unhealthy need to go in order to cut the chances of adverse health outcomes.

Should we also go ahead and dictate how much television people watch, how much exercise we require from individuals each day and measure how much sunscreen they put on before allowing them outside? Because we are all in this together right? Really there is no end to the rules we could impose upon each other since society is paying for almost everything these days.

I don't know if this is the same line, but Cook County, IL imposed a soda tax a while back. There was an uproar. It was eventually removed.

Isn't that the avenue for society to deal with rules? Enough people don't like some rule, they protest, vote people in with their views, get things changed, etc.

That makes even less sense. Then you are saying there are no standards other than what society deems they like or don't like. Because if the argument stands that we are all in this together, then certainly obesity is as big of a threat as any other health threat society is facing right now. Therefore following the logic you have put forth about societal responsibility then it stands to reason we should control what people eat. But now you are saying because people like their soda then that can stand regardless of its costs to society.

[jalanlong]

CDC study show 85% of Covid cases were people who Often or Always wear masks.

Rewrite that. "CDC shows mask wearing prevents 15% of cases"

Does that sound better? Currently there's about 7.83M cases, 215k deaths, .02746 CFR. If we prevented 15% of those cases with 100% mask usage (1.1745M), possibly could have saved (doing the math), ~32,250 deaths of the 215k so far.

I think I did that right.

Is that not a good enough reason?

There are around 6 million auto accidents every year in US and approximately 40,000 deaths. Perhaps that number would be 4 times greater in the absence of seatbelt laws. The big difference is that seat belt laws protect your own life..which I can see the argument against...whereas mask laws are meant to protect others lives. I don't understand how wearing a mask is being seen as a 'personal choice's whereas no one is up in arms about seatbelt laws...where it is in fact a personal choice.

Do you think that seatbelt laws could have been passed in today's political climate? We've had mandatory motorcycle helmet laws in Massachusetts for decades and decades. Some of the "freedom" people don't like that. In our neighboring "live free of die" state of New Hampshire I believe that they still have no such laws.

Vinny

I don't see how one gets around the issue that as long as we live in a society which takes it upon itself to medically treat individuals for injuries they can't afford, we have the right to exert influence.

You are using the system that statists created to justify even more statism. Libertarians would not have created a system whereby tax payers have to pay any medical bill for anyone else by government force. Therefore you cannot use that as justification as to why they should now have to accept even more laws that dictate behavior in order to mitigate losses from that system.

I think I'm starting to see why KBG says he doesn't discuss things with libertarians anymore. I think libertarians share many similarities with communists in that both philosophies misunderstand the relationship between individuals and collective society.

I'd love to see a simulation of this utopia with multiple competing road and utility networks free from any centralized oversight or planning. A world where there is government protection for imagined collective corporate structures that will function solely for the betterment of humankind if solely left alone. You guys inhabit a fantasy world as to the nature of humans.

I think the reason people have issues with Libertarians is that Libertarians are (or should be) logically consistent. Whereas most people live in a world of ever changing standards and rules that are based on really nothing but "society has decided" or "people want." Therefore there is no being able to have a concrete understanding of the role of government vs the individual because everything is at a whim.

Society has deemed masks are necessary because some people may catch a germ from someone else. However society has also decided to allow those same people that may be at risk from germs to go gorge themselves on soda and 3,000 calorie fast food meals because...well you really don't have a reason other than that is what society has decided. So I apologize if I get confused by the mixed messages society is sending me and a bit offended that my son has to wear a mask in PE class outside in 100 degree heat running laps away from any other kids while those same people he is "protecting" are free to have a Double Whopper at lunch that he will probably have to pay for in taxes later on down the line.

[Cortopassi]

I'm addition, as long as taxpayers and society pay for roads and the issuance of licenses (driving is not a constitutional right) then they have the right to make the rules concerning it...and if seatbelts are a rule that society deems to be necessary so be it.

So then if society suddenly decided tomorrow that soda, candy and cakes should be illegal, then I assume you would wholeheartedly support the banning of those correct? Because society has deemed them damaging to health (in certain cases) and since we all have to pay for healthcare others cannot afford then any foods society deems unhealthy need to go in order to cut the chances of adverse health outcomes.

Should we also go ahead and dictate how much television people watch, how much exercise we require from individuals each day and measure how much sunscreen they put on before allowing them outside? Because we are all in this together right? Really there is no end to the rules we could impose upon each other since society is paying for almost everything these days.

I don't know if this is the same line, but Cook County, IL imposed a soda tax a while back. There was an uproar. It was eventually removed.

Isn't that the avenue for society to deal with rules? Enough people don't like some rule, they protest, vote people in with their views, get things changed, etc.

That makes even less sense. Then you are saying there are no standards other than what society deems they like or don't like. Because if the argument stands that we are all in this together, then certainly obesity is as big of a threat as any other health threat society is facing right now. Therefore following the logic you have put forth about societal responsibility then it stands to reason we should control what people eat. But now you are saying because people like their soda then that can stand regardless of its costs to society.

Isn't that how it's been forever? Society makes the rules. Certain countries have laws, punishable by death for drugs and being gay, for example. Abortion being legal or not.

I am not saying whether the tax is right or wrong. Or any of these other laws and rules are right or wrong. Just that if the society agrees to them, that's what needs to be followed, otherwise, there are usually penalties or workarounds you need to do to sidestep (like going to another county to buy your soda).

It's quite possible a society is run by some group that's been in power way too long and has control over the masses and implements rules that society really wouldn't want. Not sure how to deal with that, like China I guess.

pug, hey, maybe like seatbelts, wearing masks will become the norm, for example during flu season. Would be a great test this winter to see what happens.

[Cortopassi]

CDC study show 85% of Covid cases were people who Often or Always wear masks.

Rewrite that. "CDC shows mask wearing prevents 15% of cases"

Does that sound better? Currently there's about 7.83M cases, 215k deaths, .02746 CFR. If we prevented 15% of those cases with 100% mask usage (1.1745M), possibly could have saved (doing the math), ~32,250 deaths of the 215k so far.

I think I did that right.

Is that not a good enough reason?

No, I don't think it is. People also die from other viruses. Why haven't we been wearing masks for those?

The seatbelt analogy is stupid. Pedestrians do get run over by idiots, and also other people die in collisions. To protect those others, cars should be banned.

People shoot themselves by accident and others all the time. Guns should be banned.

Most people are reasonable, and won't jump to going overboard on rules to start with. I think....

I don't know why Corona seems to be the exception this year.

My coworker who tested positive has returned. His wife and three girls also got it. One fever for 24 hours, 2 days of headaches and basically minimal symptoms for the girls.

So yeah, I go back and forth all the time in my head on why we have so over the top freaked out about this vs. trying to put together a logical plan to protect vulnerable people.

[Kriegsspiel]

pug, hey, maybe like seatbelts, wearing masks will become the norm, for example during flu season. Would be a great test this winter to see what happens.

Does anyone else feel like that's not a good thing? I'd think it's beneficial to be exposed to germs and give your immune system a workout. We're all alive today because our ancestors immune systems were up to snuff.

[Cortopassi]

Thus, such a plan would never be promoted by the "mainstream media", who are in the tank for the Democrats.

I can show you plenty of charts that the majority of people are watching and listening to conservative sources? That's without even delving into web stuff.

I think there's a better chance of the conservative side being hard set into specific positions than the left. My personal experience.

Anecdotally, masks generally prompt a "fuck 'em they're bullshit and taking my freedoms" level response from many conservatives, while most liberals would go "I know they aren't 100% effective but if they help even a little I'll wear them"

[Libertarian666]

Thus, such a plan would never be promoted by the "mainstream media", who are in the tank for the Democrats.

I can show you plenty of charts that the majority of people are watching and listening to conservative sources? That's without even delving into web stuff.

Ok, let's analyze the media.

Yes, talk radio is more conservative than leftist, except for NPR, which is extremely leftist.
Fox News is about 50-50 conservative/leftist.
All the TV networks, including all cable channels other than Fox: all extremely leftist.
And the biggest and most influential newspapers, NY Times and Wapo, which are extremely leftist.

So it's about 10% conservative and 90% leftist.

Hope that helps.

[Tortoise]

Anecdotally, masks generally prompt a "fuck 'em they're bullshit and taking my freedoms" level response from many conservatives, while most liberals would go "I know they aren't 100% effective but if they help even a little I'll wear them"

Maybe we need to clarify what we mean by "help". I happen to think that letting the virus spread unchecked among healthy younger people would help.

The longer we drag things out, the more trips that Grandma takes to the grocery store in which she'll potentially catch Covid-1984.

Letting the virus spread among healthy younger people helps in the sense that it builds herd immunity faster, thus reducing Grandma's number of potential exposure events at the grocery store.

[Cortopassi]

Thus, such a plan would never be promoted by the "mainstream media", who are in the tank for the Democrats.

I can show you plenty of charts that the majority of people are watching and listening to conservative sources? That's without even delving into web stuff.

Ok, let's analyze the media.

Yes, talk radio is more conservative than leftist, except for NPR, which is extremely leftist.
Fox News is about 50-50 conservative/leftist.
All the TV networks, including all cable channels other than Fox: all extremely leftist.
And the biggest and most influential newspapers, NY Times and Wapo, which are extremely leftist.

So it's about 10% conservative and 90% leftist.

Hope that helps.

Your 10/90 might be correct in terms of outlets, but that's not really what matters, it is eyeballs and ears, so I don't know how that totals.

Fox News has leftists? I don't watch, what do you consider leftist? Would that be like Chris Wallace? The definition of left vs right is probably also in question!

[Cortopassi]

Anecdotally, masks generally prompt a "fuck 'em they're bullshit and taking my freedoms" level response from many conservatives, while most liberals would go "I know they aren't 100% effective but if they help even a little I'll wear them"

Maybe we need to clarify what we mean by "help". I happen to think that letting the virus spread unchecked among healthy younger people would help.

The longer we drag things out, the more trips that Grandma takes to the grocery store in which she'll potentially catch Covid-1984.

Letting the virus spread among healthy younger people helps in the sense that it builds herd immunity faster, thus reducing Grandma's number of potential exposure events at the grocery store.

Sure. But we are so far down this path, being realistic, that's not going to happen, IMO. Everyone is waiting for the magical vaccine. You will not be able to convince a majority of Americans to go with your strategy. You will always get the kids go back to their home where grandma lives argument.