them believe he won't make it four years. So you're not really talking about Biden's opinion. You're talking about Biden's opinion for a while plus Kamala's opinion for whatever time is remaining or even the second term if she were the one to run for the term after that. So shouldn't we be really pushing on that? You know, I think we've heard everything we need to from Joe Biden, but we kind of need to hear from the VP nominee. And if we don't hear from that you have to assume that she's in favor of it or at least that there's some chance she's in favor of it, which should change people's minds.

All right, there's a CDC study. This will be a good indication of how useless data is. CDC study shows that 85% of COVID cases were people who often or always wear masks. So what does that tell you? Number one, it's from the CDC so you can trust that, right? No, not anymore. Unfortunately we've had a bad experience with experts recently, so there's no such thing as a credible source of data anymore. There are still organizations that are sort of credible but not when they give you data. It doesn't matter who it is. Anybody giving you data in 2020 is probably lying to you or incorrect. And when I say probably I mean nine and a half out of 10 times.

So would you conclude that if 85% of people who get COVID wore their masks — what's the obvious implication? All right, draw a conclusion. 85% of them wore masks and got it anyway. Therefore masks don't work, right? It's good evidence. It comes from the CDC so that's reliable, right? And 85% of the people with masks got it anyway so I guess those masks don't work. Is that what you have concluded?

Well, if you're bad at analyzing data you concluded that. If you're good at analyzing data you might say something like — Julia Pollak tweeted, who is an economist. What if I told you about economists? Economists are trained at understanding whether the right things have been compared and knowing whether a rational comparison has been made. And she points out the following two problems.

Number one, it's people who claim to have worn masks. People lie. People lie about how often they wear masks, especially if they're being asked by somebody who you know would judge you. If a stranger calls you and says do you wear your mask often, even people who don't wear masks often or don't think they wear them that often are going to be tempted to say, oh yeah, yeah, I totally wear my mask pretty much all the time, even if they don't. That's one problem. I think that's the smaller one.

And then the other problem is that they're not accounting for the differences in risk and exposure. Exactly who wears a mask in the first place? Somebody who needs to. Do people get coronavirus if there are people who are not around any virus? The people who don't wear masks are far more likely to be the people who rightly judge that they're not at much risk because they're maybe not spending time around crowds, maybe they live in a town that has almost or no coronavirus risk, maybe they're young, so they're not bothering. Correlation on this is probably backwards. It's probably backwards. Now you can't tell, but you have to allow this great possibility that the reason people wear masks in certain situations and they're less likely to wear masks in others is because they know where the virus is, at least statistically, and so they wear the masks if they're in a place where there's a lot of virus. Now where are you likely to get a virus? Probably in a place with a lot of virus.

I used to joke where I lived a few homes ago, whenever I looked outside and I saw somebody going for a run they would almost always be overweight. And I would say to myself, that's weird. Does running make you fat? Because all the people I see running look like they're trying to lose weight so running must make you fat. And then of course that's a joke. The correlation is backwards. The people who thought they needed to lose a few pounds went running. So I think that might be what's happenin