This isn't the evaluation we're having though. If it was purely a personal choice to wear one or not then maybe. As it stands, most people were compelled by law to wear a mask under every circumstance whether it made sense or not. The argument quickly went from "wear a mask to protect yourself" to "everyone MUST wear a mask under every situation". It then split into two silly sides signally to their camps and a horrible political divide got much worse. Yeah, harm has been done.

The CDC's recommendations changed yesterday. It'll take a couple days for states to adjust accordingly.

A debate on mask mandates in general over the last year is probably off topic, but I'm inclined to see them as quite justifiable.

Given current and recent events in the U.S., it's also probably best not to give the police even more reason to be able to stop and question folks for what is a very minor infraction. With something like mask mandates, it's a highly visible signal that must be obeyed by every single person, so it's prone to enforcement abuse. In general, it's just not worth it to get flu numbers down, particularly when we weren't really scared as a society about the flu before now. As always, if you're sick stay home or even wear a mask out. Laws to enforce this? Not so much.

What I'm getting at is if it were just a permanent law like "wear a shirt (if female)" or "wear pants" what's the harm?

Why not a mandate to require wearing a jacket out in the winter? Not only could you injure yourself, but you put others at risk if they have drive through the harsh conditions to save you if frostbite gets you - and most wear their jacket out anyways when it’s so cold, so what’s the harm?

While we’re at it: perhaps we make owning too much alcohol illegal. Getting too drunk is widely considered best to avoid (it sucks to throw up!), so no harm done, and you wouldn’t be able to harm yourself or others with dangerous intoxication levels. No harm done right?

How about we just mandate washing hands after the bathroom - it’s pretty gross and think of all the sickness it causes, and there’s really no inconvenience with the sick right there and all. Where’s the harm?

These all lie on a spectrum. Why not ban cars? Why not require toothbrushing? Why not requiring people to take the vaccine (if it’s safe for their situation)? Why not require saying hello to people you pass on the right side of the sidewalk? Why not mandate snapping your fingers and doing jazz hands to get others attention when someone is about to step in gum? Why not mandate wearing your shirt inside out each Wednesday in order to slightly prolong the life of your clothing and thereby save planetary resources for future generations?

Just because something isn’t that inconvenient (by your standards nonetheless) doesn’t justify the state mandating it and implicitly enforcing it with the threat of imprisonment.

Should you go to jail for not wearing a mask for flu season? That’s why it shouldn’t be a mandate: because the state has not right to coerce people with the threat of violence for innane actions no matter how harmless the act may be.

If you don’t wear a mask for flu season (or any other regular disease we vaccinate against and is part of regular life), does the govt fine you? And if you don’t pay that fine presumably they take you to jail?

Should people go to jail for not wearing a mask for the flu? If not, then there shouldn’t be a mask mandate for it - even if you think there’s no harm.

That was never the argument. Wearing masks isn't about protecting yourself (only properly-fitted high-grade masks do that well, and regular people wearing those would have taken supply away from medical staff). Wearing masks is about protecting other people from you spreading the virus (which they do a decent job of when combined with distancing).

The reason it can't just be a personal choice is because not wearing a mask isn't endangering you, it's endangering other people. It's the same reason we don't let people smoke indoors. And having a blanket rule to always wear a mask in public was mainly about keeping the messaging simple. Constant debating over which situations were safe or not for going maskless would have harmed our overall responnse to the virus. The reason the CDC changed their guidance is that there's now enough evidence to confidently say that vaccinated people can't spread the virus to others, but honestly it may potentially cause those same issues.

Yes it was. It's easy to forget what the actual messaging was in the early days. Originally we were all talking about not using up medical masks or N95 masks, which were meant to "protect the wearer from contact with droplets and sprays that may contain germs."[1] Then we all switched to wearing these homemade masks and the messaging turned to wearing them was important to stop the spread to other people. And it had to be done in every single circumstance.

> Constant debating over which situations were safe or not for going maskless would have harmed our overall responnse to the virus.

That is legitimately up for debate. One could make a good case that a noble lie to the public does more harm because it erodes trust in the institution that fibbed in order to "keep it simple". Part of the reason we were in this mask controversy mess is because the authorities were saying one thing and scientist were saying other things in many cases. Not always, but in some cases.

[1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i...

I’m not proposing keeping the mandate.

There, corrected your typo for you.

No, you absolutely are not killing people. This is absurd alarmist propaganda designed to guilt people into acting a certain way.

> If they aren’t needed, and you do wear one anyways, no harm has been done.

This is a particularly insidious argument. First, you’re required to agree to your first point about killing people. Second, you’re required to agree that compelled mask wearing has no harm.

Neither of these statements are true.