Interesting. Seems to me like the true outlier are the dark blue inner cities. For most of the pandemic, there was relatively little difference between heavily Republican-leaning (GOP vote share 60-80%) and heavily Democrat-leaning (GOP vote share 20-40%) counties.
Also... how many people are actually living in these GOP 80%+ counties? That's a ballpark you only reach in cattle country or other deeply rural, depopulated places. I'd be surprised if more than 20 million people are living in such counties across the entire nation.

Could you elaborate a little bit on this? Do you want healthy people to have to preemptively wear masks, or do you only want those with actual flu-like symptoms (running nose etc.) to wear them? All year long, the entire winter or only during actual waves of respiratory viruses? Government mandated or on a voluntary basis? In all indoor settings or only in very specific ones (e.g. crowded public transport)?

Adopting the social norm from East Asian countries to voluntarily wear a mask in certain settings when you're having the flu other similar illnesses might be a good idea. Mandated universal masking, independent from any symptoms, vaccination status or the burden on the local healthcare system would be completely and utterly unacceptable. Not sure if that's what you meant, but let's just say that anyone who's even thinking about such a thing can FUCK right off.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 26 2021 04:39pm

papers please! or no transportation.

This post was edited by lodd222 on Aug 26 2021 06:44pm

This is one of those cases where we should do it, it costs virtually nothing, but people are too stupid and selfish to do it and it can't be feasibly mandated.

Just a case of humanity being too stupid and short sighted.

You didn't answer any of my questions though
Do you want mask wearing only for persons with flu-like symptoms, or do you want universal masking by everyone?


I have to disagree vehemently with the notion that mask wearing costs virtually nothing. First, it is a big inconvenience for quite a lot of people, particularly those wearing glasses. Second, not seeing each others face takes away a lot of the facial expression and body language during social interactions. This does have a social cost. Third, it is a huge problem for deaf people and other groups who rely on reading lip movement for their communication. Fourth, universal mask-wearing would carry implicit symbolism of people being muzzled, of erecting barriers between people, of implicitly assuming everyone to be sick or a potential danger, and a general anonymity. All these things would imho have an adverse effect of social life and the public psyche.

Again: voluntary mask-wearing during flu season by those who actually have symptoms makes sense. But anything going beyond that is a non-starter.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 26 2021 11:13pm

Pfizers positive effect drops from 85% to 42%.
Means that vaccine doesnt stop you from getting the virus, but reduces the virus spread by 42%.
Unvaccinated and vaccinated people thst were covid positive were tested in UK and research showed they had same amount of spreadable virus in their organism, but vaccinsted person had a less lasting effect of spreading, by 24h difference.
Vaccines should still be used by elderly but for young adults and adolescents, as well as children, they should be completely given as a choice, not mandatory thing. Reason being we dont know effects in a longrun except that body could get used to vaccines protection which stops body from producing natural antibodies and as result becomes easier target for all the viruses.
Things above are words of dr rhonda patrick, PhD in biomedical science.

Fkn unvaxed idiots putting this healthy woman at risk

Why even post this strawman Facebook boomer meme?

More like fucking pard anti-vax degenerate posting false information, clown-sources, and doctored pictures. Which is the only reality inthere.