In that case, the science was more complicated- e.g. the first real public study (Netherlands, I think) showed that wearing a mask had no effect on whether you caught COVID. Mask wearing was all about not spreading COVID to others. But no one wanted to listen to any science than or later.

Misinformation. The recommendation against masks came when we still did not know how COVID was transmitted and at that time there was perceived to be a strong likelihood of supply shortages that would affect medical providers worldwide, on everything else besides COVID.

Once it became clear that it was transmitted by airborne inhalation, that recommendation changed.

The people questioning it were not branded anti-science, they were branded as claiming to know something that was not known, at that time.

> we still did not know how COVID was transmitted

If we didn't know, then the correct action would be to exercise pre-caution.

> at that time there was perceived to be a strong likelihood of supply shortages that would affect medical providers worldwide

Then, say that. Instead they specifically recommended against masks and said masks wasn't effective.

COVID is visibly like a flu where people cough. Saying masks doesn't work for flu-like diseases raises red flags... but people who dared questioning it were branded "anti-science".