Sometimes it is better to be safe than sorry...
You could use that logic to advocate all sorts of ineffective measures indefinitely on the basis that they might do something. It's a meaningless statement.
and before we had other protections in place a lot of people thought masks were just a little measure which may help to protect others or themselves to an extent and so they were prepared to wear them.
So you keep saying but the reality is that people only wore them once they became mandated; before then hardly anyone wore them. And once they were no longer mandated, use plummeted and now hardly anyone wears one. If you see someone wearing a mask now they really stand out.
I appreciate that some people couldn't wear them for medical reasons and others found them distressing, however for the majority of people they were a bit of a nuisance but no big deal otherwise, and there was a chance it helped protect others to an extent so that's why most people went along with wearing them, rather than 'dystopia' or other sensationalist claims.
So you keep repeating, but see replies above.
If that's the case why does usage plummet when they are no longer mandatory ?
In my view most people wore them because they were forced to, not for any altruistic reasons.
Exactly.
Perhaps because most people had been offered/taken up their two vaccinations by the time they were no longer mandatory.
It wasn't for this reason; for the majority it was simply a case of if mandated, wear one and if not, don't.
And to say that their usage plummeted isn't accurate; many people were still wearing them this time last year and from my own observations at a busy station it was a gradual reduction over some months in the number of people wearing them.
It was complicated by the fact that when they were no longer mandatory there were still several months of being bombarded by announcements and signage urging people to wear the damn things; this meant that the reduction in usage in certain settings, such as public transport, was slower than others such as pubs.
What you describe is not evidence people wanted to wear them; if they did, they'd still be wearing them today. It's simply evidence of most people doing what they are told to do, even if they think it doesn't achieve anything.
Exactly and the same goes for the opposite argument, that face coverings had absolutely on effect. That's why I said people played the percentages when it came to wearing them.
You cannot ask people to prove a negative; if you claim that a particular intervention is effective in a particular way, the onus is on you to provide evidence of this.
This country is not a dictatorship or authoritarian state, so claims of most people only wearing them because they were coerced into it are questionable to say the least.
This is completely false.
Firstly, depending on how you define it, we
did become an authoritarian state for a period of around 16 months or so. A country that tries to fine people for going out for a walk, or who harasses distressed relatives at funerals (I could go on...) is an authoritarian state in my opinion. You are entitled to a different opinion if you have a different ideology where such behaviour is normalised.
Secondly, people generally do what is mandated in most countries regardless of whether or not they are in an authoritarian state or not.
Your arguments make absolutely no sense.
