I am a bit disappointed in the analysis as I see several pre-suppositions (some might even say "biases"). I think there is an assumption that some decisions born of logic are correct and some are false, when it may be neither the commenters nor any individual actually knows the correct assessments. For example, one might believe that wearing a mask provides proximal protection against infection and so, whether it is true or not, will engage in the behavior. And so the desire to manage anxiety leads to decisions that increase PERCEIVED safety, whether real or not, and don't necessarily lead to optimal decision-making. An extreme example might be burning witches at the stake. If you wrongly believe that witches cause disease in your community, then burning them alive is a logical course to increase perceived safety and reduce anxiety ... but of course has done nothing to actually reduce your proximal risk.
