Let’s assume for a moment that maskers are right, and that masks are effective at preventing asymptomatic transmission of coronavirus. Further, let’s assume that not only are masks effective, they’re *highly* effective and well deserving of the religious-like faith and fervor /1

of their proponents. How then do we reconcile this fact (remember, in this thought experiment we’ve stipulated to the effectiveness of masks at preventing asymptomatic transmission) with the almost universal evidence of county/state/country trend graphs /2

showing continued and, in most cases accelerating, case growth long after the efficacy of mask wearing should instead be significantly reducing the growth of new cases? The most common argument one can, and does, offer is the /3

‘without-masks-it-would-be-so-much-worse’ argument. Unfortunately, not only is this type of unprovable argument a logical fallacy, it’s also intellectually unsatisfying. Perhaps the answer is a little less obvious, but a lot more likely. /4

Perhaps the key lies in what numerous experts (including Dr. Fauci, the WHO, the CDC, and many others) already told us, but most of us were too busy panicking to hear. Perhaps the reason that maskers could be right about the effectiveness of masks (again, assuming /5

for the sake of argument), while the evidence of trend graphs irrefutably shows continued and accelerating case growth long after the effects of mask wearing should have significantly reduced the growth of new cases, /6

is because that even if masks are 100% effective at preventing asymptomatic transmission, the simple fact is that there is so little asymptomatic transmission, there is essentially nothing to prevent. /7