Well it seems like you've shifted the goal posts now to me. The original conversation was about whether a certain government mandate (read: official guidance) is supportable by a "greater good" argument and now you've changed it to a question of whether or not it's supportable by (what you deem) a "material, factual" basis. In fact, you've tried to remove the government mandate part from the entire conversation!
I'm sure the Muslim countries think that their basis is just as material and factual as the COVID science. I don't know why you're arguing here: head coverings are de facto masks as long as they cover the face, you should be in favor of mandatory use. It aligns with your material, factual basis. You've yet to articulate a reason why a head covering mandate is a bridge too far. Keep in mind that men are more susceptible to COVID than women and so there may be an argument to be made that constraining women will help to protect the most vulnerable sex (men).
I say all this to emphasize that public policy debates are not so easy when both sides come to the table in bad faith and with an agenda.
I'm sure the Muslim countries think that their basis is just as material and factual as the COVID science. I don't know why you're arguing here: head coverings are de facto masks as long as they cover the face, you should be in favor of mandatory use. It aligns with your material, factual basis. You've yet to articulate a reason why a head covering mandate is a bridge too far. Keep in mind that men are more susceptible to COVID than women and so there may be an argument to be made that constraining women will help to protect the most vulnerable sex (men).
I say all this to emphasize that public policy debates are not so easy when both sides come to the table in bad faith and with an agenda.