I think the ratio of one to one is inaccurate.
A meta analysis of 172 studies across 16 countries and six continents funded by the W.H.O. and printed in The Lancet (
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext) What they found was the following:
The findings of this systematic review of 172 studies (44 comparative studies; n=25 697 patients) on COVID-19, SARS, and MERS provide the best available evidence that current policies of
at least 1 m physical distancing are associated with a large reduction in infection, and distances of 2 m might be more effective. These data also suggest that
wearing face masks protects people (both health-care workers and the general public) against infection by these coronaviruses, and that eye protection could confer additional benefit. However, none of these interventions afforded complete protection from infection, and their optimum role might need risk assessment and several contextual considerations. No randomised trials were identified for these interventions in COVID-19, SARS, or MERS.
The bulk of these 172 studies seem to suggest, social distancing and mask wearing plus eye protection is beneficial. Is there 172 studies saying the opposite?
I'm open open to what the science says, not the government, the science and at the moment the science seems to support wearing face coverings to at least reduce the risk.