You are doing the exact thing I am warning against: you are conflating mask efficacy with mask mandate efficacy. You are conflating vaccine efficacy with vaccine mandate efficacy.
In my post, I was clear masks work, vaccines work, lockdowns even work. We are not at a disagreement about efficacy for those things.
Heck we can solve murder, rape and theft by putting everyone into a coma. Justifying lockdowns is no different at all. They must end eventually, and when they do, you get New Zealand.
We disagree about the moral stance on mandating these things. Especially since mandates do not work.
"We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses."
When you read the studies they are talking about, it is not the mask technology, it is the mandates that are being tested.
To answer your first question:
"why should an unvaccinated, unmasked person wander around internal public spaces if scientifically they have around a 10x larger chance of giving it to someone else?"
Because that 10x chance of giving it someone else is someone who is also not wearing a mask nor vaccinated. Those are choices those people are making, and often they made it with poor information, or information mired in virtue signalling.
Go ahead, try to find the stats for an unvaxxed, unmasked person giving it to a vaccinated, masked person. You will not be able to.
The messaging is only that vaxxing and masking helps yourself, and stop with he "save grandma" stuff. Grandma should wear a mask too.
Thats the messaging, and it should be followed up with good, transparent data, where the actual test data is available also.
