An epidemiology article I remember said that during the 1918 influenza pandemic, many people wore masks, and it was effective although for other reasons than they may have thought.
Air-borne diseases are spread by the virus being breathed, talked, coughed, sneezed out by people in the droplets on their breath. By the time the virus reaches the uninfected, the droplets have evaporated and the viruses are small enough to go right through a typical mask. However, when the infected wear the masks, the droplets are filtered at the source, greatly reducing the exposure of everyone else.
So let’s assume a political entity orders up plenty of masks; asks or requires everyone to wear them; and does a campaign to persuade people to refuse to interact with anyone without one.
Is this a realistic strategy, given the current state of medical knowledge? And are there others?
Handwashing (for 20 seconds!) and germicidal wipes are valuable. Also, when you sneeze or cough, don’t do it into your hand. Sneeze into the crook of your elbow or your upper arm. Those areas are unlikely to touch other people or nearby surfaces. Did you touch your fingers to your mouth or nose? Use a wipe on your fingers.
We can’t help being among lots of other people, but we don’t have to share viruses with them.
It might seem odd that a politician is requiring people to wear masks that previously were illegal.
Well, since the OP a couple of more have come up:
The Navajo in the Southwest avoid mice as ‘bad luck’ and thereby don’t get the hanta virus from them (air-borne, right?).
IIR, locals in Central Asia likewise avoided fur-bearing burrowing rodents and thereby didn’t get bubonic/pneumonic plague (pneumonic plague is the air-borne version of bubonic). When outsiders came in and harvested the fur, the result was a 20th-century epidemic in the East which at least didn’t have a world-wide reach. No cite, “I read it somewhere”.
Reduce exposure. Gotta be #1 strategy.