[yazaddaruvala]

Leveraging a historical perspective (not a judgement about "good" or "bad" or "should" or "shouldn't", just an observation), the world really might not return to accepting a respiratory virus as an act of nature.

For example, dumping fecal matter into streams was the norm (still the norm in many places today). Arguably it was and is still considered "an act of nature". However, the modern appetite for such behavior is considered unethical/immoral (unless left with no other options).

This story regarding personal and group health vs personal freedom and choice (or ignorance through accidents/neglect) repeats many times in history. Arguably each article of clothing was at one time a unique and major health/wellness conversation within the culture, and either won out or that clothing was lost to time. Similarly in home plumbing (a home without running water is considered immoral), contributing towards smoke/smog in cities is considered immoral, etc.

It seems likely that both masks, and accidentally getting a respiratory virus (including the cold/flu - given its death toll) could flip into the immoral bucket forever regardless of the impact to "personal freedoms". I'm not smart enough to know which way it will go or which way it should go.

Which ever way it ends up falling, I hope we come out with a healthier society for our bodies, but also for our psyches.

[Arete314159]

Not so long ago, like in the 80's, smoking was acceptable nearly everywhere. It was fine if you didn't want to smoke, but if you asked somebody to, say, not smoke right next to you, or not smoke in your car, you were considered to be the one with a character flaw, impinging on their "rights" and "freedom."

It's interesting how things change.

[glofish]

the difference of course is that it that, unlike handwashing or dumping fecal matter in the water, there is still no scientific evidence that masks actually work (for reducing infections when worn on the street by a population where most people are not infected)

no seriously - I wish I were kidding!

[nick_kline]

I feel like that's misleading. The key thing you said is outside - inside there is plenty of research about various aspects of the protective value of masks in stopping droplets and comparisons of various masks. https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-re...

[glofish]

If you study the scientific literature for works that measure actual infections with/without masks (and not hypothetical scenarios on droplet travel distances) you'll find that the science is far from being established.

Take a look here just how many works indicate no effect:

https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

These may be cherry picked of course - no question there, still it is evidence that the science is not settled.

For a "home-run" review see the Cochrane review:

https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-s...

Not even N95/P2 respirators were found to be effective.