I don't think it does. Even the stats you quoted show that respirators will be more effective, on average, for doctors, than they will be for general population. At the same time, protecting a medical worker will give you "more bang for your buck" than protecting a random citizen. You should also count in the probability of actual exposure to the virus, which for general population is low, and for the hospitals (both the workers and the hospitalized) is absurdly high. All of this points towards strongly prioritizing PPE supply for medical facilities.

> The point here is that the evidence we had in February and early March was more than enough to make a sane decision on masks, reducing spread and individual risk while not exacerbating hospital shortages

The evidence I saw directly late February/early March was that hospitals around the world were complaining that they have days' worth of PPE supplies and started to cancel elective procedures to conserve them, while the PPE market pretty much entirely dried up (beyond the price gougers offering their hoards on-line). Why hospitals didn't have stockpiles is another matter (and IMO has a lot to do with optimizing costs, and - in countries with public healthcare - cries for leaner governments, cutting out fat, making things more market-driven). But my point is, there was never enough PPE on the market for everyone; there was barely enough for medical workers and industrial use, both of which had predictable demand around which the whole supply chain stabilized. So some kind of action that prevents general population from buying up all PPE on the market was warranted - though I don't like the one taken, which was lying to people about the effectiveness.