Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.800 --> 00:08.880]  I'm Dave Champion. Social media is ablaze with a characterization of a CDC report,
[00:08.880 --> 00:14.320]  and that characterization is that of all the people who've never worn a mask,
[00:15.760 --> 00:22.400]  only 4% have gotten the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and of this giant amount of people who've
[00:23.120 --> 00:29.440]  always worn a mask, 70% were infected, and of course we know this is true because
[00:30.800 --> 00:32.080]  it's on social media.
[00:40.080 --> 00:47.520]  Virtually 100% of what's going around on social media is being driven by articles in the
[00:48.080 --> 00:52.880]  media, of which this is one example, and this story here that you're looking at the headline,
[00:54.240 --> 01:00.480]  it's eight paragraphs, and that's what people read, and they take away these little quotes,
[01:00.480 --> 01:04.080]  and they go on social media, and oh my god, oh my god, in most cases they don't even understand
[01:04.080 --> 01:11.680]  what the hell they just read, even the eight paragraphs. Now by comparison, this is the actual
[01:11.680 --> 01:22.400]  CDC report, yeah, and that's 10 pages, of which I have read every single one. So how many people
[01:22.400 --> 01:29.360]  posting on social media do you believe even know where to go find this study? No less would take
[01:29.360 --> 01:35.520]  time out of their lives to read the entire study. If you said zero, you're probably really, really,
[01:35.520 --> 01:40.000]  really, really in the ballpark. So if we don't want to believe all the social media garbage,
[01:40.480 --> 01:45.920]  which I'd say is wise, what does the report actually say? So first of all, we need to take
[01:45.920 --> 01:51.040]  a look at the framework, what they were, who they were working with, and then we'll talk about
[01:51.920 --> 01:55.920]  what they found, and then we'll talk about conclusions. So the first thing is,
[01:56.720 --> 02:06.800]  they took about 330 people that had visited 11 different outpatient clinics, all of them,
[02:06.800 --> 02:10.720]  I think this is an important part, all of them having gone to these outpatient clinics
[02:11.920 --> 02:17.440]  symptomatic. In other words, they went there because they had some symptom or other and
[02:17.440 --> 02:24.560]  wanted to know if they had SARS-CoV-2 on them. For the purpose of the report, the researchers
[02:24.560 --> 02:30.160]  broke that pool that went to these 11 different outpatient clinics because they were symptomatic
[02:30.160 --> 02:39.760]  of something, and they broke them into two separate categories. One category were those
[02:39.760 --> 02:47.280]  that tested positive for the presence of SARS-CoV-2. The other group are people who tested
[02:47.280 --> 02:55.120]  negative for the presence of SARS-CoV-2. So you had this one big pool that's comprised of people
[02:55.120 --> 03:01.520]  who have some symptom of something and went down to the outpatient clinic, and then we take a look
[03:01.520 --> 03:06.080]  within that pool, we say, okay, these guys over here came up positive, these guys come up here
[03:06.080 --> 03:13.600]  negative, okay, that's where the framework is. Leaving social media pundits out of it and all
[03:13.600 --> 03:21.200]  their crazy statements, erroneous conclusions, what I find fascinating is when you look at this
[03:21.200 --> 03:25.680]  category, the people who tested positive in this category, the people who tested negative, and they
[03:25.680 --> 03:32.080]  ask the people, do you never wear a mask? Do you sometimes wear a mask? Do you often wear a mask?
[03:32.080 --> 03:36.400]  Do you always wear a mask? So as you go, and there's I think one more category and then I forget the
[03:36.400 --> 03:43.200]  language, but as you go down each of these groups for that exact same question, the percentages
[03:43.840 --> 03:50.000]  are virtually identical. For the purpose of this video, and to keep it relatively short,
[03:50.000 --> 03:55.360]  we're only going to look at never wear a mask and always wear a mask. We're not going to look
[03:55.360 --> 04:01.680]  at the three or four particulars in between. So let's start with this. Of those people who tested
[04:02.480 --> 04:12.480]  positive, 3.9% said they never wore a mask. Of those who tested negative,
[04:13.440 --> 04:24.400]  3.1% said they never wore a mask. Of those who tested positive and said they always wear a mask,
[04:25.680 --> 04:37.040]  70.6%. Of those who tested negative and said they always wear a mask, 74.2%.
[04:37.040 --> 04:42.800]  To provide a visual summary of what I just said orally, it looks like this.
[04:51.520 --> 04:57.920]  I think the important and intriguing takeaway from this CDC report is that whether you test
[04:57.920 --> 05:07.120]  positive or whether you test negative, how many people always wear a mask or never wear a mask or
[05:07.120 --> 05:15.120]  any place in between is identical in those two pools. And I think the inescapable conclusion of
[05:15.120 --> 05:24.880]  that, inescapable conclusion for a rational person is that your chances of being infected with SARS
[05:24.880 --> 05:32.240]  CoV-2 are virtually identical, whether you wear a mask or whether you don't wear a mask.
[05:32.800 --> 05:39.760]  Do I imagine that these tyrannical governors who are exercising emergency powers and oppressing
[05:39.760 --> 05:43.920]  the rights and freedoms of their people are going to see this study? Because it's everywhere, right?
[05:43.920 --> 05:49.120]  Are they going to see this and suddenly rescind their mask mandates? No, I can't imagine they
[05:49.120 --> 05:55.200]  would do that because it's not about science for them at all. If it was about science, this report
[05:55.200 --> 06:02.960]  would be highly persuasive, maybe not definitive, but incredibly persuasive in telling those
[06:02.960 --> 06:10.240]  governors the mask orders are just ridiculous because if your citizens wear a mask or your
[06:10.240 --> 06:16.160]  citizens don't wear a mask, their odds of getting infected with SARS CoV-2 are essentially identical.
[06:16.800 --> 06:20.240]  Since I don't believe it's going to have any effect on tyrannical governors,
[06:20.960 --> 06:26.080]  where do I see the benefit? Well, first of all, education, right? So now you know something you
[06:26.080 --> 06:31.360]  didn't know before. You know a really important fact about the whole mask wearing and infection
[06:31.360 --> 06:36.720]  rate. So, okay. Where I think this is really going to have value, though, is in a courtroom.
[06:36.720 --> 06:43.360]  Because if somebody sues a governor over a mask order, what's the governor going to say? One of
[06:43.360 --> 06:49.600]  the standards that courts apply when you're suppressing or oppressing people's rights,
[06:49.600 --> 06:56.960]  one of the standards that a court applies is have you done it arbitrarily and capriciously? That's
[06:56.960 --> 07:03.680]  a phrase, arbitrarily and capriciously. In other words, there has to be some concrete reason,
[07:04.400 --> 07:12.320]  a compelling state interest based on some factual data when you suppress or opress the
[07:13.280 --> 07:20.800]  rights of the people within your jurisdictions. In light of this CDC report, what's any governor,
[07:20.800 --> 07:24.560]  will the attorney general acting on behalf of the governor, what's that state's attorney general
[07:24.560 --> 07:29.120]  going to say if somebody drags him into court for the mask order and holds up this report?
[07:29.120 --> 07:35.600]  Since the rates are identical, your honor, is there conflicting data with which the AG
[07:35.600 --> 07:44.000]  for the governor could argue in opposition? No, there isn't. In fact, in the 100 years
[07:44.000 --> 07:51.120]  between the time the very first research was done on pandemics and wearing a mask,
[07:51.920 --> 08:01.440]  to this very day, do you know how many studies have concluded that wearing a mask, any mask
[08:01.440 --> 08:09.120]  whatsoever of any kind, any material, that it slows or stops the spread of a virus? How many
[08:09.120 --> 08:17.040]  would you guess? If you said zero over 100 years, you would be correct. My point in that is that if
[08:17.040 --> 08:21.520]  somebody takes this particular report we're talking about today, waltzes into court and says, look,
[08:21.520 --> 08:28.960]  your honor, the CDC says the rates are identical, mask or no mask, what are we doing? And the judge
[08:28.960 --> 08:33.520]  turns around and says, Mr. Attorney for the state, or Miss Attorney for the state,
[08:34.480 --> 08:40.640]  do you have rebuttal? Well, your honor, you know, the governor has the power vested in him by the
[08:40.640 --> 08:47.200]  legend. No, no, no, no, no, no. Stop, stop. Do you have any evidence for me?
[08:50.960 --> 08:56.800]  That's about all the judge would get because there is no evidence. It is arbitrary and capricious.
[08:56.800 --> 09:05.120]  It's political correctness running amok, masquerading as science. And I just shared with
[09:05.120 --> 09:11.200]  you the science isn't there. And now we have the CDC study to say that the rates mask or no mask
[09:11.200 --> 09:20.240]  are virtually identical.