This statement (my emphasis) is, as far as I know, still correct, because masks are only effective if fitted properly and people are trained to use them correctly (like absolutely no touching of the mask.)
What's changed (at least in the US) is that early on the focus was on people hoarding surgical masks because they thought it would prevent them from getting infected, in the presence of a widespread shortage.
Lately, the focus has been on the benefit of mask use as a means of reducing transmission of the virus, where the evidence points to mask use being uniformly beneficial and the concerns about mask touching etc don't apply since the assumption is that you may already be infected.
This is also what the "mask protesters" don't seem to understand (or ignore.) They talk about wearing a mask or not as a personal risk decision, when it's actually about whether you expose others to the virus.
Meanwhile, you still see people wearing valved n95s, which I'm to understand are less effective in preventing transmission from the wearer (https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Coronavirus-Bay-... ). I saw that surgeon general tweet dozens of times from tut-tut types on social media at the onset of lockdown, but info on valved n95s is buried in a cdc faq: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/respirator-use...
Not the CDC, but the U.S. surgeon general, Feb 29th: "Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus"
https://twitter.com/surgeon_general/status/12337257852839321...
Once more data came in proving the effectiveness of masks, he acknowledged in a later tweet that this is incorrect, and encouraged mask usage. But that doesn't change the fact that there was a high-level denial of mask effectiveness.
P.S. I am in fact a mask evangelist, and I don't understand why anyone would avoid them given the data.