p. It's not much of a guess actually. It was another study. A team of scientists in Hong Kong. They did some tests with hamsters or something and they determined that wearing masks is 75 percent effective. It reduces droplets by 75 percent.

Doesn't it seem to you that with all the masks people are wearing and the attention they're giving to social distancing that — and also learning what the worst things are. We've learned now that if you're around somebody who's singing or talking loudly for a long time, you're going to get it. You now have an excuse not to be around loud talkers. If you've got a loud talker in your life, you know that person who just talks too loudly all the time. Apparently they're the spreaders.

If you had it, you could probably live with somebody who was a soft talker and didn't talk much. I'll bet you Christina could have the coronavirus tomorrow, but because she doesn't talk much and she's a soft talker, there wouldn't be much coming out of her mouth. But apparently the loud talkers and the choir singing. So if there's singing involved, apparently there's more volume and you could be a super spreader just by being a loud talker.

So just knowing that, knowing that if you stay out of those specific environments — probably nobody caught the coronavirus at the beach this weekend. Duh. Don't you think? Nobody got it at the beach. I'll bet there was something close to zero transmission of all the people who went to the beach all weekend.

So now that we know stuff like that, and of course every fact that I give you is subject to being changed tomorrow, learning new things. But don't you think that between masks being 75 percent effective and that we've all learned what to do and what not to do for a while, I wouldn't be surprised if we could go back to work and keep infections dropping. All that we can.

So I've got a feeling you're going to see nonstop good news for the next few weeks.

I'm watching the Susan Rice story. Apparently we've got new documents or something. And it turns out that Comey was selling the idea of General Flynn being maybe suspiciously tied to Russia based on the fact that they had more communication than Comey expected that they would. Keeping in mind that these are people who have to work together in a few months because that's the job that Flynn has and that's the job that Kislyak has. They were doing the most normal thing in the world, which is getting ready for the new administration. And these are the very people who would be talking.

Now is that a good reason to suspect somebody being a spy? Because let me ask you this. If it's your job to talk to somebody in another organization or country and you talk to them a lot, would that be an example of doing your job well? Would it be an example of not doing your job? Or would it be an example of being a Russian asset? I'm pretty sure that if you talk a little bit more than normal to the person who it's your job to talk to, and wouldn't it be if you had more communication, not less? That's more of an indication of doing a good job.

Do you remember I told you about the new CEO move when Pence and Trump were first elected but not yet sworn in? There was a few months there and Trump already started to bring jobs back. He wasn't even on the job. It was the new CEO move where he went to I guess Ford and Carrier, tried to talk them into keeping jobs. I don't know how successful it was, but it left the impression that Trump and Pence were jobs, jobs, jobs. We're going to give you jobs even before we're on the job. I'm not even going to take a paycheck and I'm going to be so fast on this job stuff. I'm all over it with the jobs.

So if you watch Flynn doing exactly the same thing that I praised at the time as somebody doing the job before the job even starts. Last night in Periscope somebody was asking me about how to do a job interview. I didn't give you this advice but it's great advice. One way to get a job is to just do it without getting paid. If you're working at your corporate job and you're doing your regular job but the job you want is some other job, a better job, just start doing it. Do your own job on weekends, nights, spare time, whatever, and just start doing the other job. Because you're going to be the obvious person to be promoted into it if you're already doing it at least a little bit.

So I have nothing but the utmost respect for people who start their job before they start their job. If you ask me who's the superstar in the administration, the one who waited for inauguration day or the one who started hard on day one on the top priority? Russia's kind of a top priority, right? It's at the top three probably for that kind of job. And so if the guy hit the ground running, worked extra hard before he was even getting a paycheck, let's send him to jail for that. That's what happened. He was a guy who did extra work before he got his paycheck on exactly the right priority. And they almost sent him to jail for it. Unbelievable.

Anyway, so I don't know if we'll ever have enough of a smoking gun that Obama or Susan Rice or anybody we're going to have to answer to it. I don't think so. I think it will end in murkiness where it is and then everybody will just retreat to their side.

So Howard Kurtz, who talks about media on Fox News and elsewhere, he was talking about the fact that the polls don't move no matter what happens in the real world. That no matter what Biden does, no matter what Trump does, the polls come out and they're just bouncing around in the same little narrow level. It's as if our preferences for voting are completely now disconnected from the candidates. And he makes a good case because literally no matter what happens, the poll numbers don't change.

And there's some stuff happening. Here's one example that Howard Kurtz gives in his article about something that you would expect to change the polling but it didn't. And it says he talked about Trump proudly announcing that he's taking hydroxychloroquine against the advice of most medical experts. And that you know he said if that doesn't turn public opinion then Trump must be invulnerable.

Now does that sentence capture what really happened? Would you say that a good description of events is that the president proudly announced that he's taking hydroxychloroquine against the advice of most medical experts? Number one, the word "proudly" is your tip-off from mind reading. Did the president say it proudly? Did you pick up proudly? Did you detect that? Because I didn't. I detected matter-of-factness. I detected him talking in terms of risk management. Certainly there was a political dimension. But did you see proudly? See, that's one of those key words that just says ah, whatever follows in the rest of this sentence can be safely ignored.

All right. Because if you start out with a mind-reading word, it's like all right, I've now connected to his mind. Okay, yeah, I could see some pride in there about the hydroxychloroquine. Okay, let us go on. Oh no, you don't need to go on. Once somebody admits they're engaged in mind reading, stop reading. There's nothing that follows the word proudly that could possibly help you.

But here's the rest of the sentence. He's proudly using it against the advice of most medical experts. Now is that a true statement? Yes, that is a true statement. It is against the advice of most medical experts. It is not against the advice of the president's own doctor. The president's own doctor said yeah, if you want it, risk management makes sense, go ahead. We're monitoring you. So it's not like a regular person.

Don't you think it was important to mention that the president's own doctor was okay with it? Do you think it would be important to notice how many people on the front line who are medical doctors are using it? Do you think it would be important to note that something like a quarter of all doctors would and that it's an off-label use? So any off-label use is going to be — 75 percent of doctors think it's a bad idea. That's an exaggeration. But the point is if it's an off-label use, you're not going to get everybody to agree. What would be the other example of an off-label use where all the doctors are on the same page? Probably not a lot of them. There might be a few.

So here's my — and he also talks about Joe Biden having a complicated life. Oh well, this is something else. So there's another story on CNN I think it was talking about Tara Reade, the accuser of Joe Biden. And it was saying how she has a complicated life and there are conflicting accounts that muddle the efforts to understand Tara Reade's allegation against Joe Biden.

In other words, CNN hired two women to research and write an article. The fact that they're both women is important to the story because Biden was accused by a woman. And the two women go through Tara Reade's background trying to paint a picture that maybe she's not the most reliable witness. So it's basically just a takedown of a witness. Real nice.

Because what about that credibility? By the way, the whole "all women should be believed but we believe Joe Biden this time," blah blah. I feel like the way we should be talking about that is credibility, which is different than main true. Something can be credibly reported and then you find that it's not true. But it was still credible at the time. And I think that with these accusations you should say that the accuser is credible if the accuser is credible. Tara Reade I think is credible.

And then but then you should also be able to say that if the accused has a pretty good defense, you can say that's credible too. There's nothing wrong with saying that both the accuser and the accused have credible stories. Only one of them is true at most. They could both not be true, but only one of them is true at most. But they could both be credible. And I think you just leave it there. You can be credible, turned out you're wrong, but you could still be credible.

All right. So here's my larger point. It seems to me that Howard Kurtz and most of the world is looking at it as still a contest between two candidates. But I think it's ceased being a contest between two candidates some time ago. Instead it became a contest between the news media versus the other news media.

And so I would propose this. The reason that no matter what the candidates do doesn't move the polling — the way Howard Kurtz described that is that people have just gone onto their team and it doesn't matter what their team does wrong. They're just going to be on their team. So there's lots of evidence for that. So I'd say that the Howard Kurtz interpretation is a credible one, meaning that it does look like it's just team play in politics. And we are ignoring the flaws of our preferred candidate to emphasize the flaws of the other ones. And that's all that's happening. Maybe. Maybe that's all that's happening.

I would like to give this a different spin. The reason that things don't move no matter what the candidates do is that the other side never hears it. It doesn't matter what Joe Biden does if his team isn't aware of it, right? They just don't see the same reporting as the other side.

So I would argue that we're no longer in a system in which you have something like democracy and something like the candidates making their best case and then the public listening to the candidates and then the public making a decision based on the candidates. That's probably what it used to be. But today this is absolutely nothing but a massive brainwashing operation. And you've got two massive brainwashing entities competing.

So you've got the left mainstream media, CNN, MSNBC, who are doing this massive brainwashing operation. If they succeed, it literally doesn't matter who the candidate is. Do I need to prove that it doesn't matter who the candidate is? Because the candidate is Joe Biden. Do I need any more evidence that it doesn't matter who the candidate is? That's pretty conclusive, isn't it? Do you need to — there's no questions left. If Joe Biden as the candidate is good enough, then it's not about the candidate.

We are not in a world where the candidate matters. Think about that. We drifted into a world where the actual quality of the candidate is not a variable because it's not. You could replace either candidate with anybody and their poll numbers would be identical. Anybody.

Now you've got the two most different weird candidates in the world. I mean we've never seen anything like this. There's nothing like Trump. We've never seen anything like that. But there's also nothing like Biden. Somebody decomposing in their own basement on the edge of death who's leading in the polls to be the next president of the United States. There's no way this has to do with the candidates anymore.

We've completely left that world. It is just the persuasive power of the right entities and the persuasive power of the left-leaning entities. And that's the battle. The actual candidate, you can substitute them and it wouldn't matter. Now of course because we only talk about the candidates and their opinions and their personalities and stuff, it seems the opposite. But that's the magic trick.

To bolster my speculation, here's an example. So Frank Bruni writing for the New York Times says this. And look out. This is to my point. So Frank Bruni says, "Please tell me why I should care whether Joe Biden is declining mentally when President Trump bottomed him out morally long ago." He goes, "I'm serious. I'd rather drink milk past its expiration date than arsenic."

So here's a Biden supporter who's saying directly and in public that he's supporting somebody with declining mental ability and that he's happy about it. Meaning that he prefers it over the alternative. Because here's the alternative: that Donald Trump bottomed him out morally long ago.

Now suppose that was true. What if that was true? Let's say it was true that his interpretation that Trump bottomed out morally long ago. Wouldn't that indicate that we would see the impact of that morally bottoming out by now? In other words, would your taxes be higher because Trump allegedly bottomed out morally a long time ago? Remember he's saying that what happened a long time ago. So if there are impacts from all this morally bottoming out, we'd be seeing them now.

Did Trump not close the airport on time from China because he was morally challenged? No, I think he got that right. Did Trump not cut the regulations that were limiting us during the crisis? Did