This matches more with what I remember - that the concern was incorrect usage and replacement of masks was going to create a bigger transmission vector than what the masks prevented. I.e. there was never strong doubt the masks could do something about it rather there was doubt the masks could do more good than harm with what was known about the virus at the time.

Once the amount of airborne transmission and asymptotic carriers seemed a higher factor in spread than initially expected the consensus on to whether to wear them changed but not the consensus they would help with airborne transition in the first place.

So was the initial advice wrong with current understanding? Yes, pretty concretely so at this point, but precisely because it was data driven advice instead of a retrospective or fear based thinking.