Twitter is
famous for limiting the length of texts, forcing people to boil down the message to its essence and leave nuance behind.
But this is Dan Luu's point exactly. When forced to communicate at scale -- such as public health directive messaging -- there's no choice. Nuance doesn't work, only the simplest, blunt messages "get through".
Fauci, like many others, were concerned about panic-buying of masks. It's not that they don't work at all, they obviously do, and Fauci knew this. However, they don't work anywhere near as effectively in the hands of the untrained public (chin straps! pulling masks aside to sneeze! INCREASED touching of the face to adjust masks!), so it's taking masks away from people that can use them effectively.
Option 1) Tell the full message, mention that masks do work to a degree.
Outcome 1) People panic buy, and the overall effect is to make the pandemic worse because health professionals can't get enough PPE.
Option 2) Straight up tell people not to buy masks.
Outcome 2) People shrug their shoulders, don't buy masks, and the overall outcome is better, especially for the overburdened health system.
Which would you choose?
Nuance -- resulting in dead doctors and nurses, crippling the health system OR the clear but inaccurate statement -- that saves the country?
This is why it cracks me up to see responses precisely like yours, foaming at the mouth in anger.
You're angry at people that did what you would have done, if sitting in their position and faced with the same choices.