Those were simple and plausible suggestions, and yet (intentionally) absurd. You invoked costs, benefits, and tradeoffs to make that fact clear. And for what it's worth, gloves still meet the criteria - simple plausible low-cost is not the same as evidence-based. Health authorities (in Canada) most certainly were suggesting we mitigate indirect-contact transmission, with regular sterilization of surfaces using bleach being widely advocated. Gloves are widely available both in their medical and reusable cloth versions, and carry even fewer risks to social disruption than do masks.

I'm totally fine with the structure of the argument with respect to mask mandates as it's typically made. Assuming no costs and at least some benefits, sure, I don't see a problem - this is within basic morality territory so far. But if the parameters are in question? My datapoint: mask mandates have effectively destroyed a familiar relationship, because it put me in the position of asking a good-faith question to a zealot. I judge the costs to me to be extremely, life-changingly high while the benefits remain uncertain.