@EricCrampton Ah I see my mistake, that figure does include inflation, because you are comparing the current figure with the hypothetical figure. Thanks!
If you wanted to offset the warming from livestock methane emissions, research we commissioned from @ClimateFramo and @nathanaelmelia shows how many hectares of pine plantation forest you’d need to plant to achieve the same temperature effect as reducing a herd by one animal.
So I kinda think the opposite here. I think there is some degree of truth in the idea that managers will attempt to fix everything with more managers. In the same way that surgeons always recommend surgery, and economists always think that a market will fix everything.
For every problem there are a million possible solutions, and managers have their hammer, so they are predisposed to picking the solution that looks like their nail. But, for the most part, it's still better than nothing... Which is typically the proposed alternative.
Oh, also, I guess the other important take-away here, is that while overall the cases has reduced massively from the peak, if you have not been infected yet your risk is _considerably_ higher than the overall cases would suggest.
For the maths explained in this article. Would it be correct that, if vaccination provides _some_ immunity, then we would not expect the R0 to be starting as high as 6--10, and therefore the impact of a 19% reduction of Reff from mask wearing could be quite significant?