First sentence implies that sometime during a 20 day period, a 0.05% fluctuation takes place. And somehow they draw a direct correlation and causation through the use of the word association.
Exactly. This is ridiculous. The error rate if any supposed study wipes away this claim. They just can't bring themselves to admit mask mandates are bullshit.
First sentence implies that sometime during a 20 day period, a 0.05% fluctuation takes place. And somehow they draw a direct correlation and causation through the use of the word association.
Exactly. This is ridiculous. The error rate if any supposed study wipes away this claim. They just can't bring themselves to admit mask mandates are bullshit.
i want the link to the source alluded to in the comments
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/05/health/mask-mandates-restaurants-covid-19-cdc-study/index.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/03/05/as-states-drop-covid-19-restrictions-cdc-study-shows-resumption-of-in-person-dining-linked-to-more-cases-and-deaths-mask-mandates/?sh=25d430f423d0