The meta study to which I linked from mid-2020 showed no statistically significant mitigation benefit from "Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures." The gap between what you cite and my citation MAY be because...
people choose to wear them incorrectly by pulling them down below their nose or by wearing the vented masks.
It could also be due to other factors, such as a relatively higher prevalence in the US of comorbidities vs say Sweden where their per capita fatality rate is well below that of the US (and where masks aren't mandated).
I would also suggest that the prevalence of fatalies occurring in octogenarians and that virtually everyone on the planet knows you should be - and are - careful near Grandma, also points towards masks not being a meaningful part of the solution.
That the evidence on masks is mixed doesn't mean we should use more masks. I also don't think they should be discarded totally. But let's understand the trade-off: the one study in Cairo where hand washing etc worked was coupled with mildly police-state like tactics.
I still believe a risk-based approach whereby people under 50 aren't compelled to mask-up, with heightened precautions being taken for the old and infirm, is much more prudent and backed by evidence, than this one size fits all hysteria.
Or it could be because the studies used for the meta-analysis were weak in design and did not really answer the question of whether masks in real world settings reduce virus spread. That meta study pointed out several shortcomings in the data.
It could also be due to other factors, such as a relatively higher prevalence in the US of comorbidities vs say Sweden where their per capita fatality rate is well below that of the US (and where masks aren't mandated).
As far as I know, comorbidities do not affect whether a person gets sick, but how serious the disease is. Also, mandates are not as important as how diligently people adhere to the recommendations for avoiding disease. As I recall, Sweden was used early on as an example of how measures to slow the spread were not needed, but in actual fact, Sweden was affected more severely than its neighbors (at least, as of a few months ago).
When I look at Sweden data as compared to world data for the pandemic (numbers as of this morning):
Sweden had 608,411 cases and 12,428 deaths out of a population of 10.29 million. This comes out to a death rate of 2.042% and one infection per 16.9 people.
Worldwide, there were 108,289,000 cases and 2,392,030 deaths out of a population of 7.8 billion. This comes to a death rate of 2.209% and one case per 72 people.
So Sweden has a death rate only slightly lower and more cases per capita than the world average.
For comparison, the death rate in the US is lower than those of Sweden or the world, at 1.749%, but we have a very high per capita case count, with one case per every 12 people.
I still believe a risk-based approach whereby people under 50 aren't compelled to mask-up, with heightened precautions being taken for the old and infirm, is much more prudent and backed by evidence, than this one size fits all hysteria.
Every time I see some suggestion that we should take special measures to protect the old, while allowing Covid-19 to rampage through the rest of the population unchecked, I think of that story about belling the cat. It sounds nice, until you start considering how it is to be accomplished. What are we going to do, imprison everyone over age 50 in sterile facilities for their protection? Furthermore, Covid-19 is NOT completely harmless at any age. People of every age have died from it.
In any case, masks are far from a restriction on our liberty as so many try to portray. They enable us to get out and go shopping and conduct other activities that would be highly restricted without that protective measure.