Nicola Sturgeon has said it would be “logical and sensible” for Scotland to diverge from the rest of the UK in terms of an exit strategy from lockdown where the evidence directs it.

The Scottish first minister issued what will be seen as a veiled criticism of the UK government’s warning that discussing an exit strategy at this stage would confuse critical health guidance. She promised to treat the Scottish public “as the grown-ups that you are”, and share “as much detail as I can” on plans for an eventual emergence from lockdown and future management of the coronavirus.

Speaking directly to the public at her daily briefing, she said: “The challenge we face is to find a balance that allows us to suppress and control the virus and and minimise absolutely the damage it can do, while also allowing life to go on, if not completely as normal, then at least in as normal a way as is possible.

“While we know that the current lockdown measures are essential, we also know that they bring serious consequences of their own and these may also be measured in lives lost and life changes curtailed.”

She added: “I want to stress again that the government will be as open as we can be. To be blunt, I will treat you, the public, as the grown-ups that you are and try to share the really difficult judgments and balances we will have to strike.”

The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, has previously called for more details to be disclosed about how the UK government plans to leave the lockdown, but earlier on Friday the Scottish secretary, Alister Jack, warned against confusing the public message. He told BBC Radio Scotland: “I would suggest that this is not the time to muddy the message by talking about exit strategies or getting into arguments about sectors or geography or demographies or anything else.”

Asked about Jack’s remarks, Sturgeon told reporters: “This virus doesn’t respect borders or boundaries, that is obvious ... that is why the Scottish government has been working so carefully and collaboratively and closely to align our thinking and decision with the Welsh, UK and Northern Irish governments.

“But if the evidence and the science tells us that because we are all at different stages of the infection curve we might need to do things slightly differently, it would be astounding for any first minister to say that they would simply ignore that.”

Q&A Coronavirus: should everyone be wearing face masks? Show Some countries and states have been recommending that everybody wears face masks in indoor settings where social distancing is difficult or impossible. They have been made mandatory on public transport or in shops in many countries. According to guidance from the World Health Organization, people over 60 or with health issues should wear a medical-grade mask when they are out and cannot socially distance, while all others should wear a three-layer fabric mask. The WHO guidance, announced on 5 June, is a result of research commissioned by the organisation. It is still unknown whether the wearers of masks are protected, say its experts, but the new design it advocates does give protection to other people if properly used. The WHO says masks should be made of three layers – with cotton closest to the face, followed by a polypropylene layer and then a synthetic layer that is fluid-resistant. These are no substitute for physical distancing and hand hygiene, it says, but should be worn in situations where distancing is difficult, such as on public transport and at mass demonstrations. The WHO has been reluctant to commit to recommending face coverings, firstly because the evidence on whether they offer any protection to the public is limited and – more importantly – because it was afraid it would lead to shortages of medical-grade masks for health workers. Sarah Boseley Health editor

Listing occasions so far where the UK-wide approach has included a slightly different approach for Scotland, she said: “We banned mass gatherings slightly earlier, we announced the closer of schools slightly earlier, the lockdown came at the same time for the UK but Scotland was slightly earlier in the infection curve at that point, and we’ve taken a slightly tougher line on business closure, construction being an example.”

She added that divergence should not be for “silly political considerations”, but guided by science. “Where the evidence, with judgment applied to it, drives us in slightly different direction, as long as that’s for a good sound reason and not for some silly political consideration that has no place in these discussions, then that is logical and sensible.”