Not sure why you are being downvoted. That part of the article is indeed disingenuous (I'm not sure whether it's sloppy or purposely misleading). Of course the

Not sure why you are being downvoted. That part of the article is indeed disingenuous (I'm not sure whether it's sloppy or purposely misleading). Of course the 60% reduction is a relative reduction in infection rates. In fact, the "absolute decrease [of] only 1.31%" claimed by the article, if anything, is misleading, because that number (representing 60% of the 2.49%) is over a certain small amount of time, and therefore will only grow larger as time passes.