> what they actually said was, we don't recommend masks for the public
There is no reasonable explanation except that the misleading statements were intentional - there's no way they didn't notice how their statements were received. And infamously the US Surgeon General made a pretty clear statement with his "Don't buy masks" tweet.
> I was confused, since N95s come in two sizes, regular and "small."
As I understand it, if neither passes the fit test, you need a different brand or can't do work that requires one.
I think they were worried about a run on the masks that would jeopardize civil workers and medical personnel. But instead of phrasing it remotely like that, or a different tactic, they chose to lie. That's my explanation. Maybe a recording will leak or a document and we'll find out in a few decades.
We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are
effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza
transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source
control) or by persons in the general community to reduce
their susceptibility
The problem is that it is very hard to assess the real effect of masks, because they are always a part of a broader range of measures. The infamous Danish study is rather inconclusive and there are no other trying to measure the direct effect.
There is no reasonable explanation except that the misleading statements were intentional - there's no way they didn't notice how their statements were received. And infamously the US Surgeon General made a pretty clear statement with his "Don't buy masks" tweet.
> I was confused, since N95s come in two sizes, regular and "small."
As I understand it, if neither passes the fit test, you need a different brand or can't do work that requires one.