You stated: "The problem with "mask wearing" is the following: ...."
Then how do you know any of the data you quoted is reliable in evaluating the effectiveness of masking? The reason I provided the published study is that is was more controlled in evaluating the benefits of masking; comparing the likelihood in onward transmission with vs without masking as opposed to statewide data "polluted" with and without mask use. We manufacture a highly sensitive test for a biomarker that is in saliva. In order to test new lots of this product we must wear masks to prevent false positives in product testing from contamination by those performing the test. We use cloth, surgical, kn95, or n95 masks for this work and find a very significant reduction in false positive results. If these masks were ineffective at filtering exhaled particles we would require the use of fitted respirators during product testing.
Lockdowns are a different issue than masking which you now choose to discuss. They won't work because people don't understand that a lockdown is to minimize human-to-human interaction; human-to-human interactions (inadvertent and planned) continued during these lockdowns. The lockdowns were not going to stop the spread of the virus; the lockdowns could slow the spread of the virus so that the health systems would be better able to keep up as opposed to being in "Crisis Standards of Care" for the entire pandemic (we can treat and save you, we can't help you go over here and die).
There hasn't been a "global vaccination mandate"; there have been a few national vaccination mandates. Poor nations did not receive (rich nations hogged supplies) and/or were unable to distribute vaccines for several reasons, not the least of which is that the most effective vaccines could not be distributed where there wasn't -80 storage (that has changed recently).
