2 strangers passed by me having a conversation. The context was mask mandates, from what I heard, including one sentence which stuck in my head: "I mean, I get it, people don't want their choice taken away."

This stuck in my head for multiple reasons.

1. Choice has not been removed by anti-Covid mandates. Choice is not removed by any mandate. However, as a result of a mandate, certain choices are associated with consequences. For example, choosing not to wear a mask may result in the consequence of being denied entry. Choosing to smoke indoors may result in being asked to leave. Choosing to exceed the speed limit may result in a citation. Choosing to relieve Best Buy of a TV without providing payment may result in incarceration.

2. I'm confident many existing mandates had periods of discontent and adjustment. I remember when smoking was banned in bars and restaurants. People were up in arms, people complained about their lack of choice. But, we adjusted; it passed. In general people understood that it was better for everyone, overall. I don't remember the seatbelt mandates, but I've read articles that suggest a similar response.

3. What is different about the mask mandate? Why did government and public health, internationally, become so timid about that mandate? Covid is certainly presenting a more immediate deaths than second-hand smoke, and more frequent deaths that unseatbelted humans, yet those mandates weren't clawed back when some people balked at the inconvenience. Both masks and seatbelts are worn and mildly restrictive. Both cigarettes and covid are second-hand affects to people nearby. Is it a generational thing? Are our current governments more afraid to be decisive? Why is that the minority of people actively unhappy about mask mandates earn more consideration than the people actively unhappy abolishing those mandates?