I think that's a fantastic question.
One of the challenges with the masking was early on we knew that medical-grade masks were needed for health facilities to keep health care workers safe. We knew there were not enough of them, and we knew that masking guidance was being interpreted by the general public to buy an N95 mask from the hardware store. These are very common masks, and many people would normally have them.
There was an overreaction early on to try to deter people from buying masks because they were competing with critical health care supplies. I think this is a takeaway lesson. A better job should have been done of distinguishing between medical and non-medical grade masks, saying not to buy medical grade. Some of this was done but it was not forthright enough.
The science on the value of masking in the general population was uncertain. The science on the value of masking in the medical situation was certain, and that was what we were going on initially as the understanding of the virus evolved. I agree I don't think that was well-enough explained, and I think there are lessons there for the future about how that uncertainty and the state of the evidence, the state of understanding, is communicated with the public going forward.