Anti-mask people seem absolutely incapable of absorbing the simple point that wearing a mask is not to protect you, it's to protect other people from you.
The chief reason COVID is so deadly is that there is a relatively long period of time that you can infect others before you start to show symptoms yourself. Anti-mask people seem to have successfully shouted this point out of the debate.
Of course this unique state of affairs did not exist when that interview was done.
Mask people, why do you keep changing the narrative? Try a search in you favourite search engine, "masks protect the wearer" (without quotes), there you will find several results (10,000,000 on Google) most of which explain yes, of course they do, mostly from 2020. Could it be that the science is now moving against "protects the wearer"? So you retreat to the almost unfalsifiable "protects others", in the same way that the religious retreat from "God made man" to "God made the universe where evolution can happen" to "God made the conditions for the big bang"?
I'm so old I remember the beginning of the pandemic. The narrative has been there from the beginning. The challenge has been to keep it from being shouted out of the public discourse.
What Google search of four common English words doesn't return 10,000,000 results?
Also, let me say I'm totally against mandates. I feel it's everyone God given right to walk into a convenience store without a shirt or shoes. Although, during a pandemic with a highly contagious disease I'm willing to make an exception.
He's correct...when there is no pandemic, the best steps to take are to just be healthy...eat right, get plenty of sleep, and exercise.
Wearing a mask protects others from viruses the wearer has. That is why people in Asian countries have worn masks when they are sick (not to protect themselves from other people who are sick).
The chief reason COVID is so deadly is that there is a relatively long period of time that you can infect others before you start to show symptoms yourself. Anti-mask people seem to have successfully shouted this point out of the debate.
Of course this unique state of affairs did not exist when that interview was done.
Just bad faith argument after bad faith argument.