I think the flaw in your logic is a mindset that is hardwired to a binary notion of, "the virus either gets through or it doesn't." Apart from possible airflows, think of it more as a certain percentage gets through. If someone's asking, "if I have this mask on in a room where sick people are filling it up with their germs, is it going to filter out enough to reduce my risk of getting sick?" vs. "I am sick in a room with other people, the amount it filters out, how much will it reduce the risk to other people?" And also factor in, I suspect, that the airflow of breathing out into the mask probably has more air going through the mask that air leaking in through the seems that you're going to breathe in, and it's starts to make sense that the risk reduction is greater to other people than it's going to be to yourself.
Again, there's probably a tipping point of effectiveness given how much more contagious the more recent strains are, that I don't know how much having just a cloth mask is going to help. I'm not a scientist.
I get what you're saying. There are tons of variables & situations to consider.
I'm not saying masks do nothing, but is what they do really enough to justify robotic-like adherence to wearing them (or do things like double mask outdoors as some have advised)?
People could argue that when we sneeze we don't just produce aerosols, but droplets simultaneously as well - and that's true.
The mask stops the droplets, but not the aerosols - so it may be stopping
some virus, but not all of it. And the contaminated aerosols at close range that can be sucked in on the inhale through another's mask (like smelling cigarette smoke on the inhale) are probably enough to infect someone else (depending on many other factors, of course, like the viral load spewed out and how much is left that gets inhaled).
Are masks a better mitigation measure than nothing? Probably.
I wear one in public, but more to not get hassled and because it makes others feel better.
(Yet, I've been sick more in the last two years after wearing masks, social distancing and living an isolated lifestyle with infectious illnesses - so how I'm getting them, I don't know if these measures are supposed to prevent transmission of contagions. SEEMS like I've caught more viral infections with the consistent use of these mitigation efforts than I ever did before using them.)
Masks may be better than nothing, but are they effective for the purpose they've been purported to be?
I make the analogy of being in a joust and wearing a down vest...
Is a down vest better than nothing? Sure... if, by the off chance, you receive a glancing blow the vest may snag the tip of the jousting pole and prevent you from getting a severe puncture wound (this is like a mask stopping a droplet), but if you receive a straight on blow to your torso, a down vest will do nothing to stop you from being critically injured or killed (this is like a mask NOT stopping the contaminated aerosol of a sneeze).
So, it probably makes more sense to avoid jousting altogether rather than wearing a down vest all the time in case you happen to get into a jousting match!
P.S. I also keep hearing the argument that surgeons wear masks, so if masks don't stop germs, then why are they always worn during surgeries?
Same reason Fauci gave - they stop droplets. Surgeons & nurses do a lot of necessary talking during surgeries. People can't talk without inadvertently spitting to some extent - so the mask keeps droplets from entering open wounds & incisions. The other reason is to protect surgeons & nurses from splash back that can happen - they don't want to get any of the patient's fluids in their mouths or on their faces either.