If we're talking about the size of the holes in a mask compared to a virus, then it would be more like wearing a "bulletproof" vest full of holes 10x bigger than a bullet.
I guess it's a choice of analogy. If virus particles are like bullets, protection can be viewed as proportional. But if it's viewed more like a liquid, seeping through any hole, then only full watertight protection works. I'd argue that the reduced transmissibility we see from outdoor exposure supports the first of those as a more apt analogy.
But the area which does have coverage is still significant, right?