I think it all comes down to having the choice to accept increased risk or not. When some portion of the population decides relatively greater risk is worth rel

I think it all comes down to having the choice to accept increased risk or not. When some portion of the population decides relatively greater risk is worth releatively increased freedom, those around them are opted into this decision. The converse (contrapositive?) scenario where some portion of the population elects to keep risk lower in exchange for less freedom of movement only benefits those around them. Edit: An analogy comes to mind at the risk of a strawman. It's a little bit like if some soldiers in a given war become more cavalier as the enemy retreats before them. They decide that - hey, War doesn't go away - and they no longer wear their helmet or refuse to stay low and use cover. If they get hit they may be the only ones who suffer, or an enemy patrol spots the entire detachment because of them and many more bite the bullet. Yes, helmets can be uncomfortable. Yes, we all want to walk where and how we wish. Furthermore - I honestly do not feel restricted by continuing to wear a mask inside of buildings in NYC. It's barely an afterthought - I just put it on when I approach the door of a building. Yes I'm vaccinated and I'm aware that those around me likely are. I am perfectly content to only not wear a mask outside or in my own home. I don't fully comprehend the "freedom" arguments for lax mask guidelines indoors.