A good analogy would be indoor smoking bans.
Back in the late 90s to early 2000s, literally EVERYONE (even smokers) knew that smoking was bad for you, that it causes lung cancer, and that being in smoke-filled indoor spaces was bad for others' health as well.
But restaurants almost universally had smoking sections (and the smell didn't remain there) and bars allowed smoking.
Because they had three groups of customers:
- Those who demanded being able to smoke.
- Those who didn't like smoke but were tolerant enough of it that they'd still go to restaurants/bars that allowed it.
- Those who hated smoke so much that they wouldn't go to a place that allowed it.
Groups 1/2 together made up the overwhelming majority, even though group #1 might have been a minority, there just wasn't enough social pressure to keep from harming everyone.
Then California banned smoking in public places. Most other states eventually followed. Places that don't ban it (if any still exist) now have enough social pressure that if a restaurant or bar was explicitly non-smoking without being required, it likely wouldn't affect their business at all.
Social pressure changed, and the change ended up improving things for all of us. Smoking is still not illegal. But it's unclear that we would have gotten here without the indoor smoking bans.
I view the lockdowns in much the same way. I honestly believe that if a bunch of states didn't lock down, this thing would have
exploded because Americans aren't good at taking "encouragement" to do the right thing. But the goal of the lockdown wasn't to stay locked down forever--it was to change behavior and social pressure such that when things reopened, people were being careful and appreciated the dangers. As you mentioned yourself, CD, Georgia "reopened" but it didn't seem to change much at first--people realized that they needed to be careful. Now it appears they've relaxed, and probably relaxed too much.
That's where I think we are with mask orders. People seem to think that reopening means the danger has passed, and that if they're young and healthy there's no reason to have to wear a mask. The social pressure could quickly swing to the point where non-mask is the default, which endangers everyone, even those who choose to wear them.
With masks being an encouragement, it tends to come down to a personal risk/reward behavior decision, and for each individual business it comes down to a "which customer group am I least afraid of pissing off" decision. When the importance is about
societal spread, and maybe that means we need to take the decision-making power out of their hands until people realize that it's a good idea to wear a mask even if it's not comfortable.
