You are making a number of pretty common errors: no anti-viral measure is going to be perfect, it is always going to be a layercake and an 11% improvement can make a huge difference because for one it might tip the balance from 1.05 to 0.95 which is the difference between a spreading disease and one that is on the return and because these percentages are multiplicative, not additive, so it would not take '10 measures like that'.

The Delta variant R0 is in the 6-7 range.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/08/11/1026190...

There is no plausible way to bring it below 1 for an extended period of time. The most we can do is slow it down a little.

You are mistaken about what R0 means. It is a compound number that describes a virus and its ability to spread from person to person in a community, with all the measures (or lack thereof) including vaccinations in place.

The 6-7 range would be in a theoretical environment where nobody is vaccinated, there are absolutely no countermeasures and the number of opportunities to spread is equivalent to the pre-COVID days. Obviously, we do not live in that world.

In short, R0 is not a property of a particular virus strain but of the sum total of virus + all factors relating to population, behavior etc.

It is also best determined afterwards the way it is being treated right now as though it is some kind of input variable which can be controlled for is fundamentally wrong.

I understand what R0 means perfectly well. Vaccination and other factors can reduce it from the 6-7 level to something a bit lower. But there is no plausible sum of factors that will bring it below 1 for an extended period any time soon. Most interventions are correlated, not independent, and so the sum is less than the parts.

I didn't come up to the number 10 because 10 * 11% is about 100%. its just a random guess about small impact measure

We know that R of covid in a naive environment is probably more than 4. So any group of measure that dont reduce it 1 is not going to be enough. There is no 1.05 in reality for covid. When you are at 1.05 it is already because of group of measures are in place

> When you are at 1.05 it is already because of group of measures are in place

Ah and here I was thinking you thought those weren't effective. Ok, sorry.

It doesn't take 100% control to make a significant impact. Every % you take off of transmission is significant because the relationship between transmission and cases is exponential.

100% is impossible and was not the point I was making. The only things that is import is R is below or equal 1.

The relation between transmission and cases is not exponential as :

1. Cases can't go to infinity

2. R is variable, and actually changes a lot for plenty of reasons

It is not "masks → -11%" as you seem to be reading it: it's -11% after a +30% compliance.

More compliance, much increased results than that 11%.

social distancing, handwashing, increased ventilation, wfh, contact tracing app, venue contact tracing, vaccines, rapid testing, temperature checking

No idea if they're all ~10% effective, nor if you can just add percentages up like that... but it's not hard to list measures we can take, both individually and as a society.

Anyone who is legitimately concerned about COVID transmission should be wearing at least a KN95 mask. It would be interesting if the study had compared effectiveness against higher performance masks and respirators.

I totally agree.

On the other hand I would like to opt out of this exercise, since I'm totally not concerned with COVID.

I know a place where workers keep having to quarantine following covid reoccurrences. Looking for a job?

Stop testing and there won't be new cases.

Because dead people don't replicate viruses well. Got it.

Only 0.6% will die (on average over all age groups). 99.4% will have an immunity for half a year.

Only 472,497,943 can die from it then. Adding on all the other impact of creating much larger pools of folks losing spouses, parents, caregivers, along with everyone else who's loss will cause lasting and life-changing harm.

And then there's long Covid. . .

So yeah, sheesh. It's hardly any worse than taking out several nations worth of people with VX.

Everyone will die. Eventually. Those over 60 sooner than those in their twenties. Neither tests nor masks will change this fact.

>Neither tests nor masks will change this fact.

According to the original article, masks do change this fact.

Please, read the article again. Masks might affect COVID-19 spread. They don't prevent people from dying eventually.

> They don't prevent people from dying eventually.

The paper does not say this. It shows an 11% reduction in spread in the group that was encouraged to wear surgical masks. Masks were not mandated, only encouraged. It also shows that 5 months after the researchers stopped encouraging mask-wearing, compliance dropped by 14%. So masks reduce the spread, and encouraging people to wear them leads to higher compliance.