effect of the masks isn't identifiable at a population level, it's safe enough to say they don't work. Are you okay with that? That given that we don't see it working at a population level, it's fair to say they don't work. But it's not fair to say they don't stop any virus because obviously they do. It's not fair to say that there's no situation, no matter how rare, where it could help somebody because it might. Don't know for sure. So on the first weeks of the pandemic when the government said, hey, maybe we should try this mask thing, that wasn't crazy. And Bret was not crazy in saying it might be worth a try short term, see if it matters. And then he changed his mind when he had better data. That's perfect, right? If you're judging him for being once wrong, you're missing the show. You don't judge people for being wrong. You judge people for how they adjusted. That's the way to judge people. Did he adjust correctly? Yes. Yes. You can't get more correct than this. This is 100% the way you want all people to act. If you were king, you'd want all people to be human. Maybe you make a mistake. Maybe you don't have enough data. Maybe you're guessing. Maybe you're doing good risk management. I'll even go further. I think Bret is nobly taking responsibility for being wrong when he was actually right. He was right from a risk management perspective. He was wrong on the details, meaning it didn't work. If you make a proper risk management decision, that does not mean you made the right decision. That's very important. But if you properly assessed the odds and took the high probability route, that's the right decision even if later you find out it was wrong. What Bret did was say short term, we don't know for sure, deadly pandemic, we don't know how bad it could be, all variables are on the table, they're asking the citizens to try this. He's arguing we could all make it work. It's not much harder than washing your hands. That was the correct risk management take. So he's not only correct in the entire arc of how he handled it, he was correct in the first place because he treated it as a risk management decision, which is why it was. If he had treated it the way many of you did, which is does it work, does it work, that was the wrong way to think about it. The right way to think about it was risk management. And he got it completely right. And then when he had more data, he got it completely right twice. He was right twice. He was right twice. Right.

All right. Rasmussen asked people if they know people who had vax injury. 53% say they believe they know somebody who was injured by a vaccine. What percent of adults say they personally know someone who was affected by the vax? Did I miss a page? I think I missed a page. Yeah, 24%. So 24% think they know somebody who was injured by a vaccine. You can draw your own conclusions from that. Here's why I think it's dangerous to believe you know somebody injured by vaccines. And by the way, some of you do. There are plenty of people injured by vaccines because there was such a massive rollout. So whether or not the vaccines were safe enough is a separate question from whether there were injuries because vaccines, most medicine has some injury. But probably what's happening, some of yo