What would you have done, what would you have said? What would have not been dishonest?
Also, what are you going to say so you aren't accused of: fear-mongering, overreacting, or being wishy-washy and providing useless guidance?
The idea that, in a situation encountering a SARS, that you wouldn't call the guys who beat a SARS is so fundamentally silly. Especially when they're ridiculously friendly to you. That's part of what I love about startups - every successful entrepreneur tries his best at learning from everyone else's successes and failures. It's not enough to learn by yourself, you won't get there in time.
So, no, I'm not surprised they couldn't do it because they have institutional cultural failure. I don't think I could do it at the CDC either because of the cultural failure (NIH, Perfectionism, etc.). It's hard to say, we'd have to see the nuances of power in CDC vs NIAID, whether it would be politically viable even for Anthony Fauci to call Chou Jih-Haw, let alone Tsai Ing-Wen etc., and governments aren't like companies where the CEO can just set up a team of people to bypass the normal structures and collaborate with Taiwan. The CDC and gang may be broken beyond repair. I think that's the best defence you can give them.
paucity - Scarcity; dearth.
I time stamped it to where he makes the statement after the political posturing.
https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-mask-advice-was-becaus...
He may not have known that regular cloth coverings would help but by discouraging the use of any masks he undercut his argument later.
Maybe - He was saying, they knew 95 masks would help but didn't know other masks would. Either way, it feels very dishonest.