1 well said. The sooner we beat this thing the sooner we can quit masking up.

Also, for the "I HAVE ASTHMA I CAN'T WEAR A MASK" people - I have asthma. It's generally well controlled with a daily pill, but I still feel it in allergy season. And I wear a mask. Yes, it makes me sometimes breathe like Darth Vader, sometimes I have a little trouble catching my breath after running up a couple flights of stairs in one....but that's nothing compared to what it would be if I caught the damned virus.

the thing is? the people refusing to mask (there are many in  my town) are likely prolonging the agony for the rest of us. I have not seen my mother since early January, probably will not see her (please God let her live that long) for at least another year, and that breaks my heart. But I am not getting on a plane or a train in this and maybe bringing it to a woman who, while she is otherwise healthy, is in her 80s. I might care less about whether I live or die (I AM GETTING THERE) but I would hate to live with the thought I caused misery or death for another person, especially a loved one.
I know there were fights about seatbelts when they became a thing, but most people wear them now. This is just the seatbelts of 2020. The problem here is if you don't wear one, it's not your life that's most at risk...

2 The only place I wear a mask is the only place I need one: stores that won't let me in without one. Since those are the only kind of stores that exist in California at the moment, it really doesn't matter how I feel about it. 

"Whenever the locals rub blue mud in their navels, I rub blue mud in mine just as solemnly." -- Lazarus Long


-j

3 My mother doesn't have asthma and never has, but she had some kind of lack of oxygenation or overly CO2 attack while wearing a mask. Which was followed by some kind of panic attack or something, with heart palpitations. Even after we got out of the area and my mom was able to take off the mask and breathe, we had to talk her through not gasping for air, and she was somewhat weak for days after.
Thank God, it has not recurred.
My father fell and broke his finger while adjusting his mask to go into a store. Then he lacerated another finger while doing yard work, and then he had to repeatedly go back to the doctor to have the wrappings fixed from cutting off his circulation or the cast not keeping his finger rigid. Finally everything healed up.
And again, I suppose that only breaking a finger once is a negligible consequence. But my dad has balance problems that went untreated for months because no appointments for no elite threatening stuff during COVID, and now it turns out he has a neurological problem.
I had COVID back in December, before all this, and I didn't die or pass it to others, despite not wearing a mask. But I did spend time with my parents, albeit being careful to keep myself away from them. So either they caught it and got over it without symptoms, or they never caught it despite sitting one chair away from me. And I am glad, because it was unpleasant to have a mysterious crud and find it more dangerous than anticipated; but I have gotten much closer to death from bronchitis and pneumonia strains that were well understood. (And they won't let me get vaccinated against pneumonia, even though I have historically been susceptible. Fortunately I have caught it less in middle age.) 
We do not shut down commerce and breathing for the sake of pneumonia or other deadlier diseases. Somehow we mostly live.
If wearing a mask was a free choice, like in Japan, and if masks were better fitted to those of us with weird European nose shapes that promote congestion and lack of oxygen, big deal. 
But I get to wear a mask for hours every day, while doing manual labor, when I have already had it and cannot pass it to others, and when I am the kind of person who feels faint easily. (Luckily we all know that singers train so they don't need oxygen. See the "singers' mask", which is like oxygen deprivation in a bag.)

I am prepared to be cheerful about masks, because I am paid to wear one and pretend to be happy about it, and to watch for elderly customers fainting, or toddlers running low on air, and so on. But since almost everyone not paid to wear a mask is routinely exposing noses, and since cases have dropped to negligible levels in most places, it is just kabuki theater at this point. (And frankly, better to have kabuki than toddlers turning blue or red or white.)

4 I'm really sorry about your mom, and dad that sucks. 
Hearing from people in Japan, I don't think masks are a free choice there on mass transit. Stores can mandate them if they want to and otherwise it is indeed left to the discretion of the public.  I think that Japan's way of dealing with it was pretty solid, Korea too though they had very bad luck early on, getting hit hard before measures could be taken. 
Anything can be made stupid with enough government. 
I thought I'd mentioned in the post (but I didn't) that I think that a lot of the actual mask regs are kind of dumb. Forcing people to wear masks outside is dumb, unless perhaps one is in a densely populated concrete jungle, and there are municipalities that demand people wear them at home which is just bonecrushingly, mind addlingly stupid. 

In fact the draconian, counterproductive dominance displays by the ruling class is why there is so much pushback against the one thing that is the least Kabuki theatre of all the measures proposed. (except for cordon sanitaires around hot zones, which, in addition to being far more worrisome from a civil liberties perspective, are way past the date that they might have been effective.)
 I thought I'd mentioned in the post (but I didn't) that I think that a lot of the actual mask regs are kind of dumb. Forcing people to wear masks outside is dumb, unless perhaps one is in a densely populated concrete jungle, and there are municipalities that demand people wear them at home which is just bonecrushingly, mind addlingly stupid. 
However, I think that masks on mass transit, in stores, and such are the best, least intrusive and most effective way to mitigate the spread.  And yes, if they're going to enforce a mask, they need to enforce the nose being covered up. 
This situation; the mitigation of disease; is one of the few actual legitimate roles of government and stands in stark contrast to the majority of what government does. I know that there are people who have issues, actual medical issues with face coverings, and some consideration of their needs, in an ideal world, would be taken into account...but the government has to look at trends and the needs of the majority of its citizens.....that it cannot deal with every individual case is one of the reasons that we need to keep government small. 

5 All of the discussions of this issue that I've witnessed online always end up frustrating me more than anything. It seems like virtually everyone, on both sides of the issue, agree on some level that the wearing of masks helps to mitigate the spread of the virus. Given that assumption, I can't really sympathize with anyone arguing against wearing one regardless of whether it's uncomfortable to wear or the authorities are being heavy handed in their imposition of mandates.
The thing is, I don't agree with the assumption that wearing masks generally reduces transmission of the virus. First of all, all of the data seems to universally agree with the idea that mask mandates increase the spread, as counter-intuitive as that might be. In the US for example, as of about a couple of weeks ago, I read that there were 30 states with mask mandates and 20 states without, and that both infection rates and rate of deaths per 100,000 population were greatly higher in states with mandates than in states without. Furthermore, the 13 states with highest death rates per 100,000 (55 or more per 100,000) were all states with mask mandates.
I realize that even data like this doesn't absolutely prove anything. It occurred to me that, for instance, the causation might work the other way. Maybe the states with the highest rates of infection and/or deaths are more likely to respond with mask mandates. But still, if masks are such a great idea, and refusing to wear one such a bad one, shouldn't there be at least a few examples of places paying a heavy price for their (assumed) incorrect decision to avoid mask mandates?
Here's what I think is going on: People who are convinced that masks reduce the transmission rate are only considering airborne transmission, as if that were the only way the virus could spread. Furthermore, it's true that microscopic water droplets and dust particles that contain the virus are stopped to some degree by masks, but it's not like they bounce off right? They stick to the mask if anything. Also, wearing a mask is usually less comfortable than not wearing one, this fact combined with the fact that masks frequently become incorrectly adjusted on the face lead most people to touch their face far more often as they're adjusting their masks frequently or else rubbing or scratching where the mask is uncomfortable or itchy. I for one would rather not catch the virus if I can avoid it, and so it makes me feel a little uncomfortable in places like grocery stores where I see many people frequently touching their faces and/or their masks in between touching surfaces that I and others are likely to come in contact with.
So, I am against wearing masks the way I see most people wearing them. I think people just generally wearing a mask on their face all day is likely to actually increase the spread of the disease. I am absolutely against any and all mask mandates. I believe that if you're going to mandate something, you'd better be absolutely positive that it's the best approach, otherwise leave it up to individuals to make up their own mind. Finally, it bothers me when people decide that because I'm generally against wearing masks in public, that it indicates that I must care more about the inconvenience of wearing a mask than about saving lives, when that's absolutely not the case.

6 I am of two minds about wearing masks and mandating them, although I do wonder if the real effects of masks is to prevent the undetected asymptomatic infectees of the Wuhan flu who are wearing the masks from spreading it to other people, rather it directly protects the non-infected from the virus.

However, I also live in a state where several days ago, the governor was caught on record as admitting to playing political theater with wearing masks, so I am VERY skeptical of any kind of mandates, especially when the mandates come with the heavy-handed lock-downs that have occurred in far too many places, and done by both those with good intentions and with ill intent.

If the mask mandates had come in with sensible precautions like what Taiwan and Sweden introduced, where the governments did NOT lock down their countries, I probably would be persuaded, especially Taiwan now is more restrictive on where you have to wear masks.  But I am not going to support a masking mandate that comes as part and parcel of a heavy-handed lock down.  

7 Grumble.  I should have typed out:

"Taiwan is less restrictive on where you have to wear masks," because trying to type out a double negative (i.e. "more restrictive" on allowing the use of a mask mandate, thus not requiring people to wear it as often.) does not work if your mind is on other things.

8

  I am not going to support a masking mandate that comes as part and parcel of a heavy-handed lock down.  

I think that's about right.  The masks ought to make the more draconian and intrusive measures unnecessary. I also think they're being over prescribed. The should be used in, basically, mass transit and stores that require it (probably grocery stores especially) ...but there are places that are requiring masks outside, even in cars. That's stupid.

Also, it is true that they DON'T protect the wearer terribly well, but they give some protection to the vulnerable from asymptomatic spreaders. The aggregate effect seems to be noticeable if the apparent experience of the big East Asian cities can be taken at face value. 

9 @aboot says "shouldn't there be at least a few examples of places paying a heavy price for their (assumed) incorrect decision to avoid mask mandates?"
New York City.  

10 @Wonderduck New York City has a mask mandate, but maybe they're an example of a place that saw a mask mandate as a response to higher infection rates instead of the other way around. Here's the thing: the common sense assumption that wearing a mask reduces transmission rates only takes into account airborne transmission. After giving it some thought, my common sense tells me that more people wearing masks all the time will increase transmission because of all the increased face touching. As far as I can tell, the data that I'm able to find online supports my idea more than the other.
Bottom line: I'm not on team mask, and it's not because I prioritize comfort or convenience over lives.