It is odd to me that people are still debating masks at the object level, rather than having the far more important, in the long run, discussion about the power to compel mask use consistent with due process at any evidence level.

That is, I think a healthy debate would involve characterizing what the law allows at varying different levels of evidence about risk and benefit, then precisely characterizing the evidence we have, then examining various different orders to see if they're appropriately crafted.

This would be an iterative process in which we monitored the outcomes of the different orders based on pre-ammounced criteria and modified them (as well as the criteria) appropriately.

In this way, the field would be covered and we could breathe easy. There'd be no space for

real vociferousness, since nothing would be left open in the debate: the abstract field would be occupied for any possible state of evidence.

I'm going on vacation but if there's interest I can outline what I think such a discussion would look like in template form so it's usable in the future.