so, i think this summarizes where actual, really existing science is right now with the whole mask thing:
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/06/controversy-covid-19-mask-study-spotlights-messiness-science-during

what the article says is that we don't really have any useful science that demonstrates the effectiveness of mask wearing, but it seems like it makes sense (hrmmn.), so we should probably all do it, under the assumption that eventually the science will work itself out.

see, i'm not even going to really argue with my own summary of the article; i may have been a little snide, but i don't think i've constructed a strawman or otherwise misattributed, and it's almost tautological in terms of presentation - who is going to argue that mask use doesn't make sense in principle, if everybody does it right?

but, that's a suggestion. it's a hunch. it's the articulation of an idea that seems reasonable - but also a mea culpa that we don't actually know if it's actually true or not. it's certainly not a law, or an order, or a decree.

hey, let's be current and trendy in our thinking, in a way that is unusually substantive. this is a scenario where policymakers should be carefully seeking out the intersection of science and law, which i'm actually unusually qualified to talk about. seeking out true intersectionality here requires the ability to interpret the evidence from both components of the intersection, and erect them in a way that is unique to the intersection area.

understanding the legal area means realizing that science needs to be understood in terms of uncertainty, that sometimes scientists will tell you something is certainly true (such as evolution, or anthropogenically induced climate change) and sometimes scientists will tell you something is probably true (like genetic determinants for sexual identity, or the masslessness of specific particles) and sometimes scientists will tell you that they just imagine that something is true without having any evidence to back it up (like the existence of life outside of the solar system, or the idea that mask use stops the spread of viruses in a pandemic). the legal side of the equation needs to understand where the science is on any specific point before legislating, if it seeks to consult it properly. if something is certainly true, specific legal legislation is absolutely required to address it, and so forth, whereas if something really only exists in the mind of the imaginer then the issue is generally best left to whatever research departments, and the legal question reduces to what kind of funding seems reasonable, relative to the magnitude of any social or capital accruement that may come from the thought developing itself into actual science.

understanding the science area means realizing the need to be clear to policy makers about the nature of the reports being presented, under the realization that the issue is going to policy makers that ought to judge it as previously stated. it means being able to understand the science well enough to make that determination, and understanding what that determination actually means, in terms of what kind of funding or specific action is required.

so, then what to say about the quebec mask law and the backlash to it?
https://globalnews.ca/news/7178624/quebec-ombudsman-masks-coronavirus/

i don't have a general concern with the ombudsman, or any other government official, articulating a suggestion to wear masks. that is indeed in line with the science, which is currently at exactly that point, of suggesting that it is probably a good idea.

but, as the science is nether at the probably stage nor the certainty stage, there would not appear to be a sufficient scientific justification at this point for the mandating of masks, and the government of quebec is consequently jumping ahead of itself in implementation. this law is not informed by the science, as it exists, and should be overturned for that reason. there must be clear evidence to infringe on an individual's right to the "security of the person" in such an invasive manner, and the current evidence simply doesn't fit the bar to do so.

that said, i think that most people are interpreting the law as a suggestion. i live in a mask-mandated region, and mask use is not at all widespread, here. i highly doubt that the police are enforcing the law, or doing much of anything at all to uphold it. if you pass a law and the only people that follow it would have followed it without the law existing, and don't enforce it, then it's not really a law, is it? it's just a suggestion...

so, i'm going to wait until they start dragging people away before i get particularly concerned.