> This aligns with lab tests showing that surgical masks have better filtration than cloth masks. However, cloth masks did reduce the overall likelihood of experiencing symptoms of respiratory illness during the study period.

What is it that you think you read in this article? What you have said is not supported in any way by the link you have provided.

> Although there were also fewer COVID-19 cases in villages with cloth masks as compared to control villages, the difference was not statistically significant.

This means you can’t draw conclusions from this finding apart from that any difference there actually is is really small.

You can't draw conclusions from that study... yet that is exactly what you did in declaring masks to be ineffective.

What are you referring to? The top comment is not mine and also does not make that declaration, it correctly states that the difference is statistically insignificant.

The link you provided says the opposite of what you just said in the title.

Good thing better masks are available then.

If anything, this argues that we weren't strict enough on masks. Require not just wearing one, but a good one.

Wow, what a way to misrepresent that study.

The reduction in infection rates wasn't large enough to qualify as statistically significant. That just means that the reduction that they saw from cloth masks could have been due to chance.

Edit: Since the size of the cloth mask group is half the size of the surgical masl group, the effect in the cloth mask group would have to be comperatively larger than the effect on the surgical masl group to qualify as significant.

Somewhow you take that as evidence cloth masks don't work?