Thank you for providing references.

https://www.livescience.com/are-face...us-spread.html
This article references a single study done in S. Korea using only 4 participants "The other [study] looked particularly at SARS-CoV-2 and found no effect of either surgical or fabric masks on reducing virus spread, but only had four participants and ... The researchers didn't look at distances beyond 7.8 inches to see if droplets didn't travel as far while people were wearing masks, Chu said."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ct-on-covid-19
Everything here is replying to this particular report:
https://rs-delve.github.io/reports/2...al-public.html
The scientists' issues seem to be with the methodology of that report in particular and lack of evidence. They don't address any of the studies that show masks favorably.

https://bgr.com/2020/04/13/coronavir...rgical-how-to/
This article pits this study, which shows that cloth masks are very effective against other coronaviruses:
https://bgr.com/2020/04/13/coronavir...rgical-how-to/
Against the aforementioned study in S. Korea where 4 participants coughed on petri dishes 7.8" away.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...sed-sound-data
This provided the most compelling data against masks, but it also seemed strongly biased. In the last paragraph it becomes evident why (at least to me):

"Ways to best protect health workers

We recommend that healthcare organizations follow US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance by moving first through conventional, then contingency, and finally crisis scenarios to optimize the supply of respirators. We recommend using the CDC's burn rate calculator to help identify areas to reduce N95 consumption and working down the CDC checklist for a strategic approach to extend N95 supply.

For readers who are disappointed in our recommendations to stop making cloth masks for themselves or healthcare workers, we recommend instead pitching in to locate N95 FFRs and other types of respirators for healthcare organizations. Encourage your local or state government to organize and reach out to industries to locate respirators not currently being used in the non-healthcare sector and coordinate donation efforts to frontline health workers.
Really buried in the article:
"There is some evidence that surgical masks can be effective at reducing overall particle emission from patients who have multidrug-resistant tuberculosis,36 cystic fibrosis,34 and influenza.33 The latter found surgical masks decreased emission of large particles (larger than 5 µm) by 25-fold and small particles by threefold from flu-infected patients.33 Sung37 found a 43% reduction in respiratory viral infections in stem-cell patients when everyone, including patients, visitors, and healthcare workers, wore surgical masks."

The citations at the bottom also provide some interesting reading. Basically, cloth masks and surgical masks are worthless at screening air coming in and going out, but we already knew that. The reason they're effective is because they limit the distance the virus travels from normal talking to about a foot (vs 6' without a mask). With a virus that has such a long incubation period, that's a very good thing in the general public.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/2020...virus-strategy
This article quotes several studies showing that masks help significantly. The only study quoted that casts doubt is, once again, the same S. Korean study with 4 people coughing on a petri dish at 7.8'

https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1422
The article largely quotes older studies that display cloth and surgical masks do not effectively filter particles as small as viruses. This is not contested and widely known. The reason masks are supposed to be effective is because they reduce the distance of the aerosol plume. That could mean the difference between getting the virus from talking with someone whose infected and not.

Also from the same article:
"But Ian Jones, professor of virology at the University of Reading, said, “If an aerosol droplet hits the weave of the mask fabric rather than the hole it is clearly arrested. And lessening the aerosol dose chips away at the R0 [reproduction number] and helps to slow the epidemic . . . They are not a cure but they address the longer flatter epidemic curve everyone is trying to achieve.”

Once again, it seems the question is "would you prefer a cloth mask or a surgical mask?" Obviously a surgical mask. The scientists don't address any of the studies that speak favorably to masks (although it was published 7 Apr) and most of their supporting references show that the masks themselves don't filter out everything, which once again, we already knew.

This isn't enough to convince me masks are useless and all the studies favoring them are garbage. It's well known N95>surgical>cloth. Masks are supposed to limit the distance of the plume of infected aerosols, especially with asymptomatic people. Also, social distancing is a huge problem on airplanes and we need anything that can help mitigate that, especially when we're sitting at the gate fully loaded with the engines off and just PCA. The CDC and WHO said non N95 masks didn't work at the onset for a reason; that was the accepted belief by the entire medical community. But after COVID19 people started taking a good look at masks because we really don't have many other options (Home Depot won't have N95s for a looonnngg time). And yes, scientists change their minds frequently, but usually when presented with new, conflicting data. I've changed my mind on this once before and I might do it again if there's enough compelling data.