OP I think that you are starting from a premise that covid rates must be controlled in some way regardless of the collateral damage and that therefore, if you don't accept some methods to control rates e.g. lockdowns, you must accept other methods. You are also assuming that lockdowns, masks and vaccine passports are each effective ways to reduce covid rates and / or save lives.
The anti-lockdowns / anti-mask people you are talking about are unlikely to accept one or more of these statements. This is where the dissonance comes from. If you don't believe that masks are effective, you are not going to believe that they are a viable alternative to lockdown (and this is not such a crazy position - it was reported that an expert from SAGE claims that cloth masks are almost completely ineffective in asymptomatic people the other day).
I'm firmly anti-lockdown and, for me, lockdown is orders of magnitude worse than masks or vaccine passports due to the catastrophic harm it does. I'm surprised that lockdown was so easily accepted whereas there is quite a lot of pushback on masks and vaccine passports - for me the focus is on the wrong thing.
However, I'd probably say I'm anti-mask too because I think there is too little evidence of them significantly reducing case rates over a long period of time to justify a mask mandate. If you compare the strength of mask mandates in different countries / states it is difficult to see a significant correlation between strong mask laws and lower covid deaths, particularly when you control for other variables. I also think they have significant downsides. I've worn a mask when required throughout and will continue to do so in some settings in order to reassure nervous people however.
In terms of vaccine passports, I don't believe that vaccine passports for nightclubs will significantly impact case rates of covid and I don't think the government believes that either. I think, as you seem to, that they are a soft coercion method to get more people vaccinated. I don't think people should be threatened in this way in order to induce them to get medical treatment that they arguably don't need when the use of the vaccine passport itself has no provable public health benefit. It is fundamentally dishonest and sets a horrible precedent (should HIV positive people be denied entry to clubs too?). I might be more in favour if there was strong evidence of the use of vaccine passports significant reducing transmission and saving lives but there isn't so far as I can see. (And I say this as someone who is very pro vaccine in general but also pro bodily autonomy). It also seems fundamentally unnecessary to me - vaccine rates in the UK are extremely high and we haven't exhausted options for persuading more people to get vaccinated without coercion.
So that's how you can hold these three views at the same time. There is a libertarian thread to this in that I believe that strong evidence should be required to support measures which significantly limit an individual's freedom and that there are some things which no government should ever do (e.g. banning people from seeing their family). (Though I don't personally think it is extreme libertarianism to object to the government imprisoning innocent people in their homes for months or coercing people to accept a medical treatment in order to live a normal life.)