Is this a fallacy?

Oversimplifying masks as being paper ignores the standards and processes that have been put in place to ensure they are an effective preventative measure. When done in conjunction with good hygiene and social distancing, they help towards limiting risks of exposure.

Rather than being able to put a specific label on something as a known fallacy, you may want to put your focus on the known weak points or issues in the argument. Explore what they're saying and sometimes even what they're not saying, because they may be trying to shift the focus away from what is important.

My bet is it's an appeal to ridicule also.

What is the difference between Straw Man and Appeal to Ridicule?

appeal to ridicule is a more specific form of the strawman fallacy that includes an attempt to ridicule (make look ridiculous).

Really good analogy. It's easy to dismiss things intuitively without paying attention to their inner workings.

I view comparing different jurisdictions with different standards as strong evidence as to efficacy.

This is a problem due to a failure to isolate that being tested (masks) with the many other factors that are known to have an effect on the spread of COVID (e.g., lockdowns, restrictions, population density, number of populated area, climate [avg temp], etc.). To properly test the efficacy of masks, this would have to be the only variable in the equation. This has been done, and many studies can be found online.

Comparing various U.S. states and also comparing several countries, the graphs show the masks and restrictions do not slow the spread of Covid.

We cannot conclude this for the reason mentioned above.

Besides just looking at the studies (ideally, a meta-analysis of mask studies), we can look for a theoretical foundation, in other words, why would masks work... what is the theory behind the masks. This is more for virologists and epidemiologists to consider, then it is reasonable to defer to them on the issue (see the discussion on scientific consensus).

What was measured was masks actually in use, not hypothetical masks and lockdowns—real-world stuff, not an ivory tower. Mask use in areas required ended up an average of 88%, while official comments were 80% was all that was necessary to stop spread effectively. The CA v FL example becomes more striking when considering CA has a younger (less vulnerable) population than FL. 

While I agree one should say, “This is more for virologists and epidemiologists to consider,” I will examine what they report and their premises before I defer to them on any issue---especially one as politically charged as is this issue. To which I add, I found no scientific consensus on the issue. It seems the political bent of the scientist too often reigns over the science. Plus, after all, I would not want to commit the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. 

I’d have to find it, but I saw an excellent 20-minute video from the Mises Institute several months ago that goes into the subject in a lot of detail and with many graphs using many factors. I have found no contrary evidence, even from the CDC (who first questioned mask use, then mandated it, now questions it again). Do you know of any?

What was measured was masks actually in use,

Reference please. I cannot imagine how they isolated measured mask use.

The CA v FL example becomes more striking when considering CA has a younger (less vulnerable) population than FL.

What masks prevent is spread. Younger populations are more likely to get the virus and spread the virus. Age is yet another important variable, but one that works against your conclusion. The virus is more likely to spread among younger populations.

I will examine what they report and their premises before I defer to them on any issue.

Sure. Examine the evidence. If your background is in virologists and epidemiology, then I would concede your opinion that might contradict a consensus is worth considering. Otherwise,  I can't help but think your political leanings are getting in the way here.

I found no scientific consensus on the issue.

I provided a link to one in my last post (AAMC - https://www.aamc.org/who-we-are). Here is some more:

Nature, October 2020: "The findings provide justification for the emerging consensus that mask use protects the wearer as well as other people."

https://www.kff.org/news-summary/scientific-consensus-forming-over-effectiveness-of-mask-use-to-prevent-novel-coronavirus-spread-more-countries-making-masks-mandatory/

https://blog.ucsusa.org/taryn-mackinney/masks-what-the-science-says-and-what-lies-ahead

CDC and WHO are two other organizations that make recommendations based on scientific consensus in the respected fields.

It seems the political bent of the scientist too often reigns over the science.

I hope you can see the irony here. It is the political bent for those rejecting science and facts. Age of the earth, climate change, vaccine safety, GMO safety... all of which are unanimously confirmed by scientists all over the world—most of whom in countries that don't give a crap about our politics.

I saw an excellent 20-minute video from the Mises Institute...

Stop right there. The Mises Institute is not a scientific organization, it is an economic/political one (based out of Alabama.) I will happily dismiss this source as illegitimate for the topic, but happily evaluate any evidence they present in the video.

 I have found no contrary evidence, even from the CDC (who first questioned mask use, then mandated it, now questions it again). Do you know of any?

Contrary to masks working? No, I don't know of any legitimate sources presenting any evidence. Research on cloth mask use for COVID was non-existent prior to COVID. Even research on cloth mask use (non- N95) to any virus was scarce, at best. Science worked exactly as it should. As more research is done, recommendations stay in line with the findings. If, after a full year of testing masks in the real work under controlled conditions it is found that they are ineffective, then so be it. As of now, that certainly has not been the case.

I think I can sense a highly emotional state in your discussion, and, as I said, why something scientific whose real-time results can be publicly seen should induce emotion evades me. 

Whether the masking and restrictions actually work, as AZ, TX and others remove all the restrictions, we shall see. Some experts warned Thanksgiving, Xmas, and New Years' Eve would be super-spreaders, and other experts said it would not happen. The latter proved to be correct. What will the new "free" state be like in the next few months? We shall see.

I am just trying my best to keep information on my site from misleading readers, and yes, I am passionate about reason, science, and truth.

why something scientific whose real-time results can be publicly seen should induce emotion evades me.

It can't—at least not just looking in the US, this is the whole point. Besides everything already mentioned, states like Florida with no mask mandate comprise counties and towns that impose mask mandates, plus national chains and business that have their own policies. I just got back from Sarasota, FL and masks were everywhere (besides people walking around outside where social distancing wasn't an issue). This is yet another reason why it is virtually impossible to make any conclusion about masks by looking at data.

Whether the masking and restrictions actually work, as AZ, TX and others remove all the restrictions, we shall see.

In addition to everything already said, we have a sample size of one, so we cannot "see." For example, assuming we are spared the problem with the more deadly variants, as more people get vaccinated, as the weather warms, and as herd immunity kicks in, the numbers will go down... even in Texas. The question is, how much of a difference would there be if TX kept is mandate? We don't know.

Some experts warned Thanksgiving, Xmas, and New Years' Eve would be super-spreaders, and other experts said it would not happen. The latter proved to be correct.

I won't quibble over the definition of a "superspreader," but we see a significant jump 1-2 weeks after Thanksgiving, and another 1-2 weeks after Christmas. Regardless, these were predictions, not scientific claims.

Hey, I did not intend to get into a discussion about masks because (1) it is too emotive [like religion] and (2) because I am on vacation in Panama (retired people have to do something) and don't have access to my library at home or the time to check it. So I'm only going to address your last paragraph.

The point is not whether there was a significant jump after the named events. That is where we are talking past each other. The point is there was not a significant difference in the numbers between highly restricted states and the less restricted states.

My parents were born during the 1918-1919 Spanish Flu pandemic. I have lived through four pandemics. The Asian flu pandemic of 1957, the Hong Kong flu epidemic of 1968, and the H1N1 Swine flu pandemic in 2009. They were not politicized. The fourth one, Covid-19, has been highly politicized and emotionalized. Like most other people, I’ll survive Covid (the survivor rate is over 99%) — even though I am in the vulnerable age (79)  group. It is done by being responsible, not by being a sheep. I got the vaccine in Jan and Feb.

I love the idea of your site as dealing with logic. However, I have to tell you that your statement "I am just trying my best to keep information on my site from misleading readers" rings of FaceBook, Google, Twitter, et al. It is not a good sign if you are saying if determine that anything with which you disagree is misleading.

However, I have to tell you that your statement "I am just trying my best to keep information on my site from misleading readers" rings of FaceBook, Google, Twitter, et al. It is not a good sign if you are saying if determine that anything with which you disagree is misleading. 

Noted. Unlike Google, Facebook, etc. I am not removing content*. I am more like a fact checker where readers can choose to ignore me or not.

* I remove off topic posts on occasion... so maybe I am like Google and Facebook :)

I see a difference between "off topic" and "misleading." Gotta go. Off for more fun in Panama. BTW, here each store takes your temp and puts hand cleaner on your hands before you can enter, and you must wear a mask almost everywhere. The vaccines are just now starting to arrive in the country.

I should clarify that one way to get around the need to isolate the variable (as in masks) is to ensure the study is being done in groups where the differences in the other variables are statistically insignificant throughout the groups. So for example, if there were two states that (I am spitballing here since I don't know all the variables) had the same climate, the same population density, the same number of densely populated areas, the same lockdown policies, and other restrictions,—but only differed in mask policies, then we can draw a reasonable conclusion about masks. Given the number of factors and the act that we only have 50 states, I don't think this is a possible.