Speed limits, and seat belts are not equivelant examples. A speed limit is a restriction on risk to others, and property, a seatbelt is a reduction on the risk to only oneself, unless one has passengers, but even that has its logical limits. I can perhaps see the parallel you are drawing with speed limits, but I'm not entirely sure that it is necessarily an accurate comparison to make. To speed requires willful intent to endanger. As such, I could see it being argued that it is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Not wearing a mask, however, is really only willful intent to endanger anothor if one is knowingly ill, and willfully spreads it to others (and, if so, it should be punished accordingly); however, if one is not knowingly ill, then there is no aggression.

People fought against drunk driving laws lol, with pretty much the same "personal freedom" arguments.

Look up how some people fought seat belt laws.

Seat belt laws are not an equivalent example. Unless one has fellow passengers, not wearing a seat-belt is of no risk to anyone but oneself.

Just like masks and vaccines they’re not actually doing much most of the time

Then why enforce rules when there is no risk to anyone? To enforce a rule is to say that there is an aggression that is being controlled.

Your mask isn’t there for your own good. Wearing a mask may reduce the viral load you may receive if you’re exposed, improving the odds your immune system can stamp out any nascent infection, but that’s just a bonus. The purpose of a mask in a mask mandate is to protect others from you in the event you’re infected but in the window between becoming infectious and becoming symptomatic and therefore aware (and possibly beyond if you’re the kind of person that knowingly mixes with others and coughs openly when sick). Because it’s for people who don’t know they’re sick, it only works if everyone does it.

This is, indeed, a critical issue to note. When thinking about such types of policy (I'm referring to policy on the government level), I try to follow the "non-aggression principle". What one must then ask is: "Does not wearing a mask violate the NAP?". If one is aware of their transmissable ilness and is knowingly spreading it to others by not wearing a mask, then this certainly would be a violation of the NAP. In such cases, one would be required to wear a mask. Now if we are talking about a case where an individual isn't ill, yet their bodily autonomy is still being infringed upon by being forced to wear a mask, then this would also be a violation of the NAP. That being said, things become a bit more grey if we are talking about the situation where one could transmit an ilness asymptomatically. I'm inclined to say that, in this transition point, it would be best to rely on people's own precautionary measures like getting vaccinated, and self-masking; however, I agree that I am biased into this line of thought. (Some extra discussion if you are interested)

This was particularly important with the original strain of SARS-COV-2 because it had a particularly long incubation period.

Please forgive me if I am incorrect -- epidemiology is certainly not my strong suit -- but isn't this statement contradictory? I have the understanding that "incubation period" means that one is asymptomatic while the virus replicates within themself.

Incubation period (also known as the latent period or latency period) is the time elapsed between exposure to a pathogenic organism, a chemical, or radiation, and when symptoms and signs are first apparent. -- Wikipedia:

If one is asymptomatic (no coughing, no runny nose, no sneezing, etc.) then wouldn't they not be transmitting the virus? The only thing that I can think of is that one may be sluffing off virus through physical contact, but, if so, there are a few issues: the first issue would be that masking would then become pointless, and the other would be that one could simply wash their hands after contact, unless, of course, we are talking about a virus that could hypothetically be absorbed through the skin.

General, society wide, mandates aren’t imo necessary under the prevailing conditions, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be situations (close knit group with a spike in cases for example) where reintroducing such rules make sense.

I have no issue with a closed group deciding to implement such restrictions amongst themselves; people are free to do as they wish so long as it does not infringe on the lives of others. I just, personally, hope that this doesn't become more widespread, yet again.

While the community suffers the aggragate, the individual is still not individually powerless.