I agree that it was stupid to take that route. You could always say it was a precautionary measure if effectiveness is low (it is for most masks). Although there is a limit on what you can propose here and it might cause a backlash if you do that too often and may affect future and more efficient measures.

But err on the side of caution for a new form of virus isn't that hard to convey. It was the hobby enforcers of rules that did the most damage in my opinion, with badly sourced data. People should focus to adjust their own behavior accordingly instead of that of others.

If supply for masks was critical, this should be communicated as well. There would be a run on masks, but it shouldn't be a problem to set aside contingency supplies for hospitals. This is what they should have focused on.