Masks could have been handled in the same way: from the manufacturer/retailer end. Masks could have been pulled off shelves and diverted to healthcare workers until they could be sold in limited numbers to consumers.
To be clear “handling” here meant that there were extensive and pervasive country-wide shortages, and many people went without toilet paper for weeks, including myself. People who needed toilet paper went without, while others hoarded more than they’d need for a year.
That’s the problem people were trying to avoid with masks. First responders and doctors needed them most, but we had people out there literally willing to buy as many as they could for their own personal supply. You can’t wait for the invisible hand of the market to just sort this kind of thing out.
https://www.today.com/news/brothers-who-hoarded-17-700-bottl...
Get a bidet, and buy a newspaper (no need to read it; it's already covered in shit).
Buying toilet paper when there is a toilet paper "bank run" is rational just as it is rational to take out your money from a failing bank.
Were I lived we had toilet paper but were all out of yeast. One person could buy all the store's 300 yeast bags for like 30USD. And as soon as people realized the yeast were gone they seemed to always buy yeast when available, making a shortage for a long time.
A way to prevent this is some soft limit on the amount people can buy. But it need to be in place before the shelves are empty.
So you are saying, the authorities should have send out a public messaging: "Don't buy toilet paper, toilet paper doesn't work", and that would have solved the situation?
You are coming up against a confirmation bias.
Look at toilet paper - one rumour that it would run out, despite shops, the government, everyone, saying there is more than enough and the rabble went out and hoarded.