It's true, profit is a great motivating factor. For which we have many products and services we might not otherwise have.
In your working life, did you expect to get paid for your labors? Or did you do it for free just to have something to occupy your time?
Or do you perhaps have a retirement plan wherein you invest your money? If so, do you expect to get a reward for lending that money, for example hoping to earn interest, get a dividend, or an increase in value of your investment?

Individuals and businesses take financial risk when developing a product, such as a vaccine or medication. They expect a monetary reward for taking the risk, and a reward for providing a product or service of value.

We can debate just how much of a profit is reasonable, but I don't think we should stop rewarding actions that truly benefit society.

It's true, profit is a great motivating factor. For which we have many products and services we might not otherwise have.
In your working life, did you expect to get paid for your labors? Or did you do it for free just to have something to occupy your time?
Or do you perhaps have a retirement plan wherein you invest your money? If so, do you expect to get a reward for lending that money, for example hoping to earn interest, get a dividend, or an increase in value of your investment?

Individuals and businesses take financial risk when developing a product, such as a vaccine or medication. They expect a monetary reward for taking the risk, and a reward for providing a product or service of value.

We can debate just how much of a profit is reasonable, but I don't think we should stop rewarding actions that truly benefit society.

Well I watched the video as you suggested and then went to his website and reviewed the studies he referred to in this video and other articles authored by him. Here are a few of my conclusions.

1) The studies were about protecting ME (the wearer), not YOU (the other person).

2) most of the study conclusions were inconclusive as many of the studies were grossly under-powered, i.e. low sample size. The studies also focused on the ME not the YOU.

3) Many of his references were meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is one step above a guess for a variety of reasons. The studies focused on the ME not the YOU

4) Some of the studies concluded that while N95 masks were effective for HC workers, they weren't recommended for the general public because improper fitting and use making them ineffective for the USER.
Again they focused on the ME not the YOU.

5) The studies evaluated masks as the ONLY preventative measure for the ME, not in combination with other preventative measures and the impact on YOU.

The world agrees that masks (of any kind) offer only limited benefit to the ME (user) but to extend that conclusion to the YOU is not only wrong, but may be dangerous. They also agree that masks by themselves aren't the answer, but just one important tool in the world's toolbox to reduce the pathogen spread.

On a personal level (opinion):

Wearing a mask still feels better even though I know there only a limited personal benefit. Any barrier to the aerosol is better than none at all.

On a practical level (fact):

Every surgeon goes into the OR gowned and masked, not to protect him, but the patient on the operating table. This is almost universal. And the surgeon doesn't typically use N95, but general surgical masks.

In infectious environments in hospitals it's not uncommon to have the patient wear a mask in addition to the caregiver. This reduces (not eliminate) transmission in both directions, protecting both the patient and the caregiver.

On a macro level (fact):

Countries that habitually use masks have better outcomes. For instance, S Korea and Japan. During flu season, masks are very common, not so much to protect ME, but as respect for YOU in their societies. They both have a strong sense of community and general respect for others around them, not wanting to spread their infection.

S Korea uses face masks as one element of many to reduce the pandemic impact. In a county with a population over 50M, they've only had 285 covid related deaths. Now compare that with CA's 6500 deaths with a population of only 40M or the 35K deaths in NY with a population of only 20M.

Japan is similar. With a population of 125M, they've only had 980 covid related deaths. They also didn't use lack of testing as an excuse, they've only done a total of 380K covid tests, while CA is doing 100K per day. Mask use there isn't the only mitigation element, but just of of many. It's highly unlikely that without masks Japan would have had these kind of results.

Nor did these two countries shut down their society as we did.

I was tickled to review a Chinese study referenced but this guy. The paper concluded that it wasn't wise for the general public to wear masks (for influenza). Before the pandemic, S Korea performers visiting China were mocked for wearing masks there. But when the pandemic began, China went on a worldwide buying spree vacuuming up all the PPE they could find. During the pandemic they made face masks mandatory. Even if they under reported their results by 10X, they still had grossly better outcomes in this pandemic than us. Face masks were integral with with other mitigation methods to reduce the pandemic impact on their society. Look at pictures of China today and you'll see almost everyone wearing face masks.

Then as a final thought, how many HC workers does one think would agree to work in covid ICU's around the world that would seriously consider face masks as worthless or even dangerous?

For use on humans in a civilian setting, yes, I would disapprove, as you are unnecessarily putting innocents at risk.

Try defending your choice of that ammo in court.


Civilian self defense is not military combat.

What is needed for one is inappropriate for the other.


Indeed, requirements even change in military engagements, depending on the mission.

What is needed in a jungle is not what is needed in a desert is not what is needed in the woods, etc.

You don't have to worry about what ammo you use in a military conflict, unless you modify it, as you have no choice in what to use.


As a civilian, however, it is critical that you choose your equipment wisely, because you always have THREE battles for each engagement.

First, you have to survive the fight.

Second, you have to defend against possible criminal charges.

Third, regardless of the outcome of the second, you have to defend against civil charges brought about by family seeking revenge.


You might want to reconsider your choices and make those that will allow you to win all three battles.

The cost of losing any one of them is considerable.


There is no place for macho in a two-way shooting gallery - military or civilian.

You are, or course, free to choose as you please.

That's why we served, in the first place.


Choose wisely.

Actually it's' the number of positive tests that are increasing by thousands every day.
Implying that infections are increasing. No doubt they are, but to what extent?
Turns out, unfortunately, that the CDC and at least several of the states, do not separate positive v***s tests vs. positive antibody tests. Rather, they are lumped together into a single tally. Irresponsible to say the least, if not downright misleading, especially on the part of the "esteemed" CDC.

In light of this, I posted a question on our state's Department of Health facebook page asking how they count their positive tests, and my post was deleted.