Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue with this argument is that it could, just as well, be used to force people to wear bubble wrap instead of clothes to avoid falls. The question is how much we're willing to sacrifice for safety. Fortunately, most people aren't willing to go as far as suggested.
The issue with this argument is that it could, just as well, be used to force people to wear bubble wrap instead of clothes No, it most certainly could not. This is just the slippery slope fallacy. Incidentally, nobody forced you to wear a mask. You always had other options. You are, however, forced to wear a seatbelt (aside from NH) and, in almost all states, a helmet while on a motorcycle. Other than a few overconf…
It absolutely could. This is just the "slippery slope fallacy fallacy": assuming that all slippery slope arguments are fallacious.
Another mistake you make is assuming that everybody you talk to on this site lives in the US. I can assure you that not only I was "forced" to wear a mask, in many parts of the world people lost their jobs for refusing to do so.
But I see I am talking to someone who not only believes that he is "on the right side of history", but also that the history has "the right side".
I deeply regret to say that I will not modify my way of interacting with others, especially now that we know that the pandemic is over.
I hold a strong conviction that face-to-face communication has been a successful method for thousands of years, and I am not inclined to adopt a technique of uncertain effectiveness and potential unknown consequences, solely due to the influence of a minority of individuals who suffer from health anxiety (and I don't use the word hypochondriasis as a gesture of good will here).