The data at this link has less than nothing to say about mask effectiveness.

One graph says, for example, that mask mandate areas in the US have slightly higher infection rates than non-mask mandate areas. But this is extremely expected - high infection rate is what prompts areas to mandate mask usage.

If I feel at risk (maybe because I observe people getting ill and dying), I comply. If I don't feel at risk, I don't care about complying.

Also, why no Asian countries on the international charts? That would be inconvenient for the point, hm?

Well, I live in CA and the CA graph is missing a number of critical marks, including the point right before the spike where CA dialed back a number of regulations, allowed indoor dining, etc.

Missing such important information - the specific information that goes against the page's agenda - calls the entire thing into question. What else is it intentionally not showing?

What isn't shown in this graph is how the numbers would look without mask mandates.

Obviously even simple cloth masks help: notice how they get wet when you wear them? That moisture is your exhaled water droplets, the carriers of virusses, that don't end up in other people's faces!

Also, do you think surgeons wear masks for fashion reasons?

The mask discussion is absurd. A totally minor inconvenience vs. decreased virus exhaling, how can this be a topic for discussion?

Isn't mask compliance an important metric here that's not shown? Having a mandate doesn't really do much if people don't actually comply with it.

Compliance is the fifth chart down, and about 2/3 of the way down is a graph of new daily cases per million between mandated mask locations and those without any mandate.