My point is not really about 10% versus 20% versus 53%.he might trot out this meta study the left leaning papers have been circulating to trumpet a 53% reduction by masks! (which BTW, would mean masks really are better than vaccines). What they don't tell you it's just a meta study (which means garbage input from some garbage studies, including 3 Chinese propaganda studies which were widely panned, means garbage output) and even in the footnotes there's an acknowledgement that the best studies seem to indicate about a 10% reduction (which would be right in line with what I've been saying) and perhaps more if better masks were used.
Mask-wearing linked to 53% cut in Covid incidence, global study finds
Researchers said results highlight the need to continue with face coverings, social distancing and handwashing alongside vaccine programmeswww.theguardian.com
My point is that even a 10% change to transmissibility is far, far larger than you understand. You think a 10% change to transmissibility means a 10% change to total cases. That isn’t what it means at all.
For the US, a 10% change to transmissibility is the difference between a disease which infects 30 million people and a disease which goes nowhere. That’s the same as the difference between the 2018/19 flu and the 2020/21 flu.