Hi,
I answer anyways, even though I cannot find my arguments referred to in the first place.
With that mindset, you would have to take the same safety precautions with all other statistical death probabilities similar to Corona.
If we had a killer disease that was really as deadly, no one would debate or doubt the matter.
If we had such a plague, then all people would behave considerately all by themselves, they would not only wear a mask, but probably far more effective protective clothing or devices, no one would get the crazy idea to see the issue as controversial.
No one would demonstrate in the streets against the measures. No one would get upset, but would sensibly stay at home all by themselves and only leave the house in the very extreme emergency. People would refuse to go to work should a company be so narrow-minded as to insist that people come to work. But even that would not be the case. Everyone would agree that such cautious behaviour would be appropriate.
In the case of a killer virus of great lethality, each of us would already have numerous deaths to mourn among our closest relatives, friends and colleagues, we would all be witnesses to this tragedy and we would be surprised if a government or the media were asking us all the time to stick to the rules, because we would not need to have these rules explained to us by anyone, we would know it by ourselves and by our own experience. Such a dangerous disease, it would take hold of people in inconceivably large numbers even if all possible precautions were taken.
The fact that, as you can see in your video, people are arguing about the mask issue, going shopping in the immediate vicinity of each other, driving taxis and so on, that would be unthinkable because it would be an absolute luxury to be in public and argue with each other in such a debauched manner.
Is it possible that what angers us - pro or anti-mask - is the madness towards this situations at all?
The taxi driver wouldn't even have got into his taxi, he wouldn't be carrying a single passenger, we'd have an epidemic. The shop assistants in the supermarket wouldn't have anyone to argue with because they very likely wouldn't be going to work. You would also have to reckon with the fact that people would only want to get their groceries by delivery. No one who could catch a deadly disease would demand to be able to live normally again, because the matter would be of absolute fate, like a tsunami or an earthquake.
I don't know of any politicians or community leaders who would stand up and make a broad smear campaign against rule-refusers who, for example, would take a bus full of schoolchildren to the coast in the event of a flood. Since there would be no such action nor campaign.
In this respect, would it not be wise to give more room to doubt?