[astrophysician]

I mean I see the point, I think their comments made a lot more sense in the context of where things were back then, and they didn't consider how they would be viewed after the initial panic phase was over.

> the result is eroded trust that health advice being given is in your immediate best interest.

I would argue that they are making health advice that minimizes the population-wide risk; I don't expect them to tell me the optimal thing for me to do to protect myself if that advice means that the population-wide payoff is worse (i.e. "hey everybody the best thing you can do is to grab an N95 mask" might be optimal for everyone who is able to do that but that is not the optimal thing to do for the population). I kind of understand people's frustration but I just don't personally feel that this was that controversial.

[kipchak]

I definitely agree that there's value in having people do things that aren't necessarily in their immediate best interest, but I think the cause of ire is people being deceived in order to do the right thing rather than asked. In an ideal world something along the lines of "masks are effective however due to supply shortages should be reserved for the most vulnerable and healthcare workers" might have been more accurate, but would also have likely led to runs on masks.

The chain of events leading up to what they said makes sense to me, but it puts people in an odd position where we have to trust guidance not because it's accurate but because the organization issuing it thinks saying such will have the best outcome. If for example the PPE situation worsened again and masks became unadvised for similar reasons I think more people would be skeptical as a result.