I think the async/await patterns solve one problem really well: UI latency.

My UI background is web testing and C++ game UIs in C++. There are like 3 patterns in multithreaded games. Thread per responsibility (old/bad), Barriers blocking all threads and give each game system all the threads, or something smart. Few games do something smart, and the thread per responsibility is not ideal and we will ignore it for now.

In games often pausing everything and letting the physics system have all the threads for a few milliseconds is "fast enough". Then the graphics systems will try to use all the threads, and so on so that eventually everything will get all the threads even thought everything else rarely needs it. Sometimes two things are both close to single threaded and have no data contention so they might both be given threads, but this is almost always a manually decided things by experts.

This means that once UI, the buttons, the text, cursors, status bars, etc, gets its turn there won't be any race conditions (good), but if it needs to request something from disk that pause will happen on a thread in the UI system (bad and analogous to web sites making web API calls) so UI latency can be a real problem. If any IO small or some resource system has preloaded it then there isn't a detectable slowdown, but there are still plenty of silly periods of waiting. There is also a lot of time when some single threaded part of the game isn't using N-1 hardware threads and all that IO could have been asynchronous. But often game UIs are a frame behind the rest of the game simulation and there is often detectable latency in the UI like the mouse feeling like it drags or similar.

Allowing IO to run in the back while active events are processed can reduce latency and this is the default in web browsers. IO latency in web pages is worse than in games and other computation seems smaller than games, so the the event loop is close to ideal. A function is waiting? throw it on the stack and grab something else to do! This means that all the work that can be done while waiting on IO is done and when does well makes a UI snappy.

If that were available sensibly in games it could allow a game designed appropriately to span IO across multiple frames and be snappy without stutters. With games using the strategy I described above latency in the game simulation or IO can cause the UI to feel sluggish and vice versa. In games caching UI details and trying to pump the frame rate is "good enough". If the UI is a frame behind but we have 200 frames per second, that isn't really a problem. But when it chugs and the mouse stops responding because the player built the whole game world out of dynamite and set it off the game will not process the mouse until that 30 minutes of physics work is done.

There are better scheduling schemes for games. I am a big fan of doing "something smart" but that usually means scheduling heterogenous work with nuanced dependencies and I have written libraries just for that because it isn't actually that hard. But if you don't have the raw compute demands of a game scheduling IO along side your UI computation is often "fast enough" and is any easy enough mental model for JS devs to grok and allow them freedom to speed things up with their own solutions like caching schemes and reworking their UIs.