indications at the time were that the level or prevalence didn't justify the widespread wearing of masks in the face of global shortages. As more and more evidence became available that contradicted their understanding, those same scientists were forced to admit that they were wrong. That admission was the nexus for the change in advice globally.
What’s the difference now and then as regards prevalence.
If global shortage was the problem, them we could have made masks or used scarves. Not buying that.
You’ve proved my point though. The scientists were wrong. But heck, I’ve no idea if they are right now. And I’ve less reason to trust them. Do you realise there is no consistency.