In principle, sure, but here, it's just grotesque.
They admit RCTs show masks don't matter, so they put together a few differential equations (which most certainly could be chosen differently to support something else entirely) such that in some domains (virus-limited) masks help a lot, in some (virus-rich) not.
Then they implicitly assume that RCTs didn't show anything because they were done in virus-rich environments and somehow conclude from this dubious claim that "Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission".
They admit RCTs show masks don't matter, so they put together a few differential equations (which most certainly could be chosen differently to support something else entirely) such that in some domains (virus-limited) masks help a lot, in some (virus-rich) not.
Then they implicitly assume that RCTs didn't show anything because they were done in virus-rich environments and somehow conclude from this dubious claim that "Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission".
Am I not reading it correctly?