If the reason why your lungs don't work is a virus, as in this case, you're not just talking about your own freedom, you're talking about the freedoms of others. And given that these brave people are the first ones to line up in the ER, this is obviously an issue of public health, it has the word 'public' in the name for a reason.

We're living in complex societies where reckless behaviour puts others at risk. If you live on a sheep farm in the appalachians do with your lungs what you want, the reality of modern urban society is that we're interconnected. In that context freedom and safety are mutually dependent, even reinforcing.

The idea of "I can do with my X whatever I want" and then stop thinking there and calling everyone a fascist or an oligarch made a lot of sense if you're a 18th century homesteader, it doesn't make much sense today.

Should you have freedom to walk naked? Nudists were advocating this kind of freedom for a long time. I personally have sympathy for this point of view.

Passing COVID-19 or flu onto another person, especially elderly, may kill that person. Walking naked with mask if you keep your body clean as far as I can see will not kill anybody. So, why should we enforce clothes if we do not enforce masks?

Bans on public nudity are almost certainly motivated by moral decency and not subjecting children to this, not for health reasons.

I know. So, just to be sure. Are you suggesting that limiting freedom because of "moral decency" is ok, but limiting freedom because you can kill people is not? And what is "moral decency" anyway, because in many Asian countries people will look at you as if you are breaking moral standards when without a mask.

Also, children are perfectly able to handle asexual nudity. A lot of countries in Europe allow being top-less in public places like beaches.

There is just no way to justify things like enforcing bras on women, but not enforcing masks in crowded places during pandemic.