Doesn't mean that Fauci is necessarily right. But I'm yet to see someone with verifiable scientific credentials hold an opposite point of view.
Before Covid the prevalent opinion among experts is that masks require training to handle properly, otherwise they wouldn't "work". Mind you, they are then thinking about high contagion zones, like in hospital wardens filled with sick people. In such cases, even better equipment and proper handling is paramount.
It was unknown then that regular masks could help, but the consensus shifted during the pandemic as people needed better protection. So even cloth masks were deemed helpful, if just to somewhat prevent making others sick. Later studies found masks helpful, though distancing even more so.
Someone lied to you about this being lies, and not just shifts in consensus and measures during the pandemic. "Nobody" expected a pandemic, for example US pandemic response taskforce and planning were disbanded and defunded.
Besides, this is from a bad-faith hearing after the fact, not concretely what was said and done at the time by who. You'd have to include the entire context for that to be fair.
In our country, we got the message that healthcare workers were prioritized first, so masks had to go to them. Maybe the media frenzy in USA forgot to tell that, or maybe that message got lost on the way to everybody. Why do you assume bad faith from medical officials, and on what grounds?
There was also consensus among doctors that you need qualifications/training for masks to be useful. I see that only as common arrogance and lack of research. This was corrected with later investigations and tests.
Do you believe consensus among experts at the time was that the public would be adequately protected with masks? They knew the virus was more infectious than that at the time. So there's little point in recommending something that will become in too short supply fast and lead to unsafe behaviour. At first, distancing would be best focal point to direct behaviour in the populace, which would be the responsibility of the administration.
Was there any signs of intention from Fauci to mislead the public? What motive would be behind doing it that way?
You might also remember Fauci was later denied making official comments, clarifications and corrections in front of the press. That decision from the top and lack of support from the top, shifts responsibility up.
Pretty obvious from his statements that his motivation was to manipulate the public.
The blowback to his reputation is a reasonable reaction. He made a decision to mislead and that was exposed, and the public trust in the value of his words was diminished. That was always a risk he should have been aware of.
It is not obvious. It is obvious it's easy to create a strawman, and then beat down that strawman afterwards with unfounded accusations. The whole premise is false without concrete quotes or evidence. Wouldn't it be better to know for sure what was said that was so wrong, before jumping to hidden intentions behind why something was allegedly said? What would be the real difference between saying one thing or another, and why would health officials intentionally mislead (motive)? Wouldn't most people start distancing no matter what is said officially, iow follow the right mitigation. Most people are usually not that stupid.
It sounds like you've been convinced of this by someone, but you don't present compelling evidence of actual statements at the time, that Fauci used to mislead the public. Do you believe it is normal to find multiple scapegoats to deflect blame on after the fact, or do you also find that to be assisting of psychopathic behaviour? Scapegoating is just an extension of making strawmen, but it fails the moral compass, as it doesn't help anybody. It's just something someone uses to tear down the people besides them, for their own selfish gains and for everyone's detriment. Why support such behaviour at all, and not give innocent people around the benefit of doubt? What good do you think will come out of rewarding such behaviour?
The main difference may be wether the reasoning is based on reasonable facts and agreements/responsibilities, or if it is based on feelings and emotions. If the latter, it seems misplaced as finding a small fault in others do not excuse the massive strings of manipulations, lies and gaslighting from the top position in that environment. Or should we all be drinking bleach and shine light on our bodies, to be safe from an influenza-like sickness (it is not really)?
It's better to re-examine the main source of problems, what gaslighting is and how it works, rather than officials around scrambling to make the best out of a tough situation, without proper support and room to find a clear voice to the people.
If everyone around a person is hopeless, it is that person that is hopeless. Nothing good comes from supporting people tearing everyone down. The difference is between the occasional mishap, versus a long string of pathological behaviours. It's too easy to hold on to an ideology or ideas, and then excuse such behaviour, but the results will be self-evident from the bad actions themselves.
You may not condone that type of behaviour, but I think it excuses mishaps and mistakes, and should lead to questioning the premises and goals behind accusations.
Good day to you too!
I'm not following the Fauci situation closely either. But there are scientists of the opinion that the Wuhan lab, partly funded by US money via Fauci, was playing with fire. For example, in this tread someone else posted (in support of Fauci) an article that contains this fragment:
> Paul cited Richard Ebright, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University and a critic of gain-of-function research, who disagrees with the NIH. Ebright has said that the EcoHealth/Wuhan lab research “was — unequivocally — gain-of-function research.”
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/07/scicheck-fauci-and-paul-ro...