> You can deduce a lot from reasoning. For example, you can deduce that in an endemic disease, a vaccine without close to 100% efficacy and deployed in close to

> You can deduce a lot from reasoning. For example, you can deduce that in an endemic disease, a vaccine without close to 100% efficacy and deployed in close to 100% of the population, all it will serve to do is exert selective pressure on the virus to avoid immune response. "All it will do" BS. It will save and continue to save lives into the millions, if the fatality rates in India are anything to go by, while allowing for some semblance of normality for people who are not afraid of a risk profile similar to that of the flu when vaccinated. "It will exert selective pressure", yeah, no shit. You know what also exerts selective pressure? Washing your hands and having a functional immune system. Everything induces selective pressure because that's how evolution works. Since when has that been an argument against vaccination? > You can use reason to deduce that cloth masks on the wall at the checkout line at the liquor store are mostly useless. You don't need to be an epidemiologist to understand the basic mechanisms by which pathogens spread and have a basic idea of how natural selection works. This is absolute delirium. Mask wearing works (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.16.21258817v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.16.21258817v...), (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1439 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1439), quoted as being "particularly effective", with several explanatory hypotheses as to why (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777695 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777695). So, yeah, if you're going to claim that the armchair epidemiologists were right, you better show some damn validation instead of making up your own numbers. Tired of this bullshit.