The very study you're citing explicitly states that N95 respirators were the main ones tested, not surgical or cloth masks. It even states at one point:

"Before going into the epidemiological evidence on the effectiveness of medical facemasks in preventing respiratory infection, it is important to clarify the difference between surgical masks and respirators. Respirators, formally known as ‘disposable filtering half-facepiece respirators’, are designed to reduce the user’s exposure to airborne particles (e.g. fine dust generated from industrial processes such as grinding of metals, or biological aerosols generated from sneezing) by forming a tight-fit seal around the user’s face, which requires a careful fit test before use and is difficult to achieve in the presence of facial hair"

Furthermore, the article also stated that their main use would be social signalling of sorts:

"...wearing facemasks is a highly visible and iconic behaviour that might increase the public’s risk awareness and encourage them to seek other relevant health information and improve their personal hygiene behaviours, many of which have been proven to be effective in infection control (e.g. handwashing, social distancing)"

There also seems to be conflict in the sources; some are used to state that masks in general are not as effective as believed ("Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery", others are used to state that masks are highly effective ("Facemasks for the prevention of infection in healthcare and community settings"), and some simply state no discernably significant difference between maks and respirators ("N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel") - again, this is all for the same article. Combined with the fact that several of the papers cited were either summaries of other papers (potentially ones cited for this article), or relied on self-reporting from subjects on adherence to method and results; meaning we have no assurance that subjects are properly following procedures, or that statistically significant results can be linked to one practice (face-covering), as opposed to social distancing, hand-washing, or any combination of behaviours). Let's not even get into the fact that peer-replicable, controlled environment, laboratory testing isn't something that could easily, or ethically be done.

Properly worn, fully sealed respirators do have a significant chance of inhibiting infection - I will agree to this; however, the eyes are still vulnerable, and the article offers no citation concerning the statement that the evidence "defies the claim" to such.

Ultimately, from what I know of medical practice (which is limited to First Aid/CPR/AED training, and dialogue with medical staff), I'm not convinced that wearing a respiratory mask - medical or cloth - does not protect you from aerosol infection; these items are meant to inhibit you from infecting others.

This is the professional opinion of the CDC, the WHO, and various medical branches of universities around the country, and the world. Stay at home when you can, wear a mask if you have to, observe proper hygiene and maintain 6 ft minimum distance at all times! This is possible for people!