Very simplistic statement. What is “in public”? How is touching a mask (and therefore your face) constantly a guaranteed win? Why has the virus not raged incredibly in locations with fewer mask mandates? Would it make more sense to require masks “in private” where people are in closer contact? Requiring them outside “in public” where people are spaced out is symbolic and authoritarian; it makes people like you feel better. Hardly a reason for a policy.
You mean a location like the entire US? It has raged incredibly. Don't fool yourself into thinking anywhere in the US, mask mandate or not, actually has a high rate of mask usage.
The only way to do any sort of comparison would be the US versus another country which actually follows a mask mandate. Even then, the comparisons are hard because those countries likely did lots of things right.
> Requiring them outside “in public”
Yes, masks outside are dumb in many situations. But, this was in direct response to people just moving their large parties outside with no distance. Unfortunately any time a rule is not spelled out in great detail, people look for loopholes as a form of protest. Ironically, this leads to rules spelled out in symbolic and authoritarian ways.
So it’s a complex issue. I do support mask wearing in public. It certainly doesn’t do any harm and I think it encourages good habits and makes people think about what they do and why. I suspect if they are effective, at least some of that effectiveness comes from those peripheral effects. Still, every little helps.