Using a bad mask badly is still better than not at all. But we really are doing a lot worse in terms of quality of masks and mask usage than we ought to be...
It is scientific and rigorous. You've not understood it correctly and Cochrane have been explicit about the fact of that misunderstanding. They are not saying the things you think they are saying.
FWIW, they definitely do work. The issue is that it's quite hard to produce effective studies to confirm if they work one way or another to point to to say "see, we've proved they work, now put one on!"
Largely what the Cochrane report appears to say is that these studies aren't actually suitable to draw firm conclusions from (which is what all the talk of "evidence" are about. They mean that the studies they read don't have sufficient evidence to support their own claims and that while Cochrane can therefore tell us "study X had conclusion Y" they and we shouldn't assume that's actually correct as "study X" wasn't actually very good.)
In addition to Macros's comment explaining some of the details around what the specific claims of that report are, here is the statement from Cochrane explicitly saying that people have misunderstood the report in claiming it says masks aren't effective (and taking ownership of the fact that this is at least in part because of issues with how clearly the report communicates it's findings.)
I think the newest Cochrane medical study rated n95 as 18% effective and regular masks 5% effective against covid, btw.
Lots of people seem to have picked up the idea that the recent Cochrane report states that the evidence shows masks not to be effective that but it is a misunderstanding (largely it just seems to claim that the various studies it found on the various topics they were looking at were mostly useless for drawing any sort of conclusion about the matter.)
The text of the statement on the matter from Cochrane from the above link:
Statement on 'Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses' review
logo
The Cochrane Review 'Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses' was published in January 2023 and has been widely misinterpreted.
Karla Soares-Weiser, Editor-in-Chief of the Cochrane Library, has responded on behalf of Cochrane:
"Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation.
It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses.
The review authors are clear on the limitations in the abstract: 'The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.' Adherence in this context refers to the number of people who actually wore the provided masks when encouraged to do so as part of the intervention. For example, in the most heavily-weighted trial of interventions to promote community mask wearing, 42.3% of people in the intervention arm wore masks compared to 13.3% of those in the control arm.
The original Plain Language Summary for this review stated that 'We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.' This wording was open to misinterpretation, for which we apologize. While scientific evidence is never immune to misinterpretation, we take responsibility for not making the wording clearer from the outset. We are engaging with the review authors with the aim of updating the Plain Language Summary and abstract to make clear that the review looked at whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses."
KF94's are also equally effective (and similar in comfort to KN95's.) There are concerns about counterfeits of KN95's in general and masks made in China in general though so KR95's (Korean) made in Korea or n95s made not in China are more reliable options.
Even a counterfeit mask claiming to be any of the above is likely to be alrightish and far better than nothing.
What you want to look for generally is a triple-layer (or more) mask that is made from non-woven/melt-blown material that gets a good seal. Beyond that just finding something you can afford, reliably get and feel comfortable wearing are kind of the next most important things to look for (the mask you wear is always better than the one you don't!)
Reusable masks only go so far. Any mask will reduce your risk of spreading the virus to others. But a good mask will do so far better, and only a good mask will protect you from infection from others.
For reusable masks, the only good ones either are either only good for a limited number of washes or require replacing a disposable filter the provides the actual protection (and so are mostly just holders for the disposable masks. It's possible that the extra material saved using disposable filters vs disposable masks is not equal to the additional resources required to make the mask they fit into.)
Most reusable masks people wear tend to only provide ok protection for others and none for themselves. Often the ones I see provide very little protection for others and are really just a concession to following the word but not spirit of the rules.
I'd rather encourage people to use disposables that are usually far more effective than the reusables they would otherwise use personally.
Masks just aren't inherently a big deal. It's just been made one by people seeking to politicise what should be a universally accepted good (trying to stop the spread and harm of a pandemic/epidemic disease.) People have reframed it as "they" are trying to control you! So vote for me/buy my tat/give me attention and I will protect "us" from "them"! and just about everyone has been influenced in their response to this simple practical health issue in some way as a result. Some entirely buying into the message and insisting there's some insidious reason we're being asked to take simple actions to prevent infection, others simply being a little more lax in their action than they would be if there wasn't a fairly large vocal minority insisting that no action should be taken at all.
I just can't understand how people can notice and be bothered by black bars but not a horribly distorted picture (or even having half the image cropped away.)
In case you aren't joking, a video in the original 4:3 format can be zoomed in to watch it in 16:9 cropped or stretched to 16:9. But a video that has already been stretched usually can't be destretched and one that has been cropped cannot be zoomed out.
Cochrane is a real source.
The report is being entirely misinterpreted. It does not make the claims regarding masks being ineffective that people think it does.
Here's a statement from them to that effect: https://www.cochrane.org/news/statement-physical-interventions-interrupt-or-reduce-spread-respiratory-viruses-review