10 ms·

It’s shocking to me that people can’t remember literally one year ago when among others Dr Fauci told us that wearing masks was ineffective in stopping the spre

by JackFr 6y ago

It’s shocking to me that people can’t remember literally one year ago when among others Dr Fauci told us that wearing masks was ineffective in stopping the spread of the virus. We understand why he did it, there was an absolute crisis of PPE and there was fear that medical staff wouldn’t be able to get any masks because of regular folks hoarding. That’s fine. No one is denying that he’s a very smart, well-intentioned health scientist doing his absolute best to help the country. But don’t pretend he didn’t say what he said. He said it on 60 Minutes, and he explained why he said it months later to the Washington Post. Here’s the real problem — despite his good intentions, when people in authority tell you that they had, or perhaps still have to, lie to you “for your own good” — that’s not a hallmark of a free society. That is the hallmark of an authority which considers the public a problem to be dealt with and it dissolves trust.

deathlight 6y ago
>When the Director of the CDC asserts an opinion, she has to optimize for two things - being right, and keeping power. If she doesn't optimize for the second, she gets replaced as CDC Director by someone who does. That means she's trying to solve a harder problem than Zvi is, and it makes sense that sometimes, despite having more resources than Zvi, she does worse at it. >... >I realize it doesn't sound like it, but I'm trying to excuse the CDC here. I'm not just saying they're corrupt. I'm saying they have to deal with the inevitable amount of corruption which it takes to be part of a democratic government, and they're handling it as well as they can under the circumstances. >... >Dr. Fauci (and WebMD) are legibly good (or at least legibly okay). They sit on a giant golden throne, with a giant neon arrow pointing to them saying "TRUST THIS GUY". If a random shmuck who doesn't know anything about anything Googles "who should I trust about COVID?", Google will return Dr. Fauci's name. This is a position of great power; Dr. Fauci is able to make decisions that will affect billions of dollars in wealth, Senate seats, Twitter likes, and other extremely valuable resources. Thousands of people who would prefer that they get the dollars and seats and likes will be gunning for him. In order to stay on that throne, Dr. Fauci will need to get and keep lots of powerful allies (plus be the sort of person who thinks in terms of how to get allies rather than being minimaxed for COVID-prediction). Quotes from https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/webmd-and-the-tragedy-of-legible https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/webmd-and-the-tragedy-.... I think it's a good read overall, maybe a bit long for some. I share your concerns for apparent bad public policy. Having a government that messes things up and then patronizingly dodges all criticism while lapping up unearned praise (looking at you Cuomo) is frustrating and makes people lose faith in experts and "the system". The general social and media environment we live in today is definitely not helping.
NotSammyHagar 6y ago
He also said it was a mistake later, owned up for it, as you describe.
- tux1968 6y ago
  I never heard him say it was a mistake, I heard him say it was a necessary lie to protect supplies of masks. Do you have a link to where he said it was a mistake? Maybe I just missed it? And a quick google shows this: https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-doesnt-regret-advising-against-masks-early-in-pandemic-2020-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-doesnt-regret-advising...
- Avicebron 6y ago
  I'm not sure you can say anything is a mistake if you then release a statement saying "why I did it". it just comes off as an accidental card tip to what's really going on
dabbledash 6y ago
It isn’t fine. At a time when being able to trust public health officials is so important, to see officials blow their credibility with this kind of thing is incredibly frustrating. If was stupid anyway. “Masks don’t work and also we need them for healthcare workers.” Did anyone actually believe this?
- simonh 6y ago
  It depends on the masks. Health care workers on COVID wards use high spec masks, N95 or equivalent, and they do seem to be very effective. The kind of open sided masks most of the public use have limited evidence of effectiveness. Similarly the face shields are intended to protect from projectile slater of body fluids from patients coughing explosively. There’s no evidence at all they provide protection from people breathing nearby but I still see people using them in public. So it’s a complex issue. I do support mask wearing in public. It certainly doesn’t do any harm and I think it encourages good habits and makes people think about what they do and why. I suspect if they are effective, at least some of that effectiveness comes from those peripheral effects. Still, every little helps.
  - cudgy 6y ago
    “I do support mask wearing in public. It certainly doesn’t do any harm and I think it encourages good habits and makes people think about what they do and why.” Very simplistic statement. What is “in public”? How is touching a mask (and therefore your face) constantly a guaranteed win? Why has the virus not raged incredibly in locations with fewer mask mandates? Would it make more sense to require masks “in private” where people are in closer contact? Requiring them outside “in public” where people are spaced out is symbolic and authoritarian; it makes people like you feel better. Hardly a reason for a policy.
    - simonh 6y ago
      Did you miss where I said it’s a complex issue?
    - matwood 6y ago
simonh 6y ago
Yes , I agree. I think Fauci was well intentioned and had his reasons, but there must be a cost to wilfully deceiving the public. I can understand it in wartime when the deception is really aimed at the enemy, but this isn’t that. The fact is though, people are willing to accept being lied to by people they otherwise view favourably. For example a lot of the people decrying Fauci as a liar support Trump, who at the beginning of the pandemic was telling a journalist in private how the coronavirus was deadly and more dangerous than the worst flus, but in public at the same time was saying it was a hoax and nothing to worry about, and obstructing efforts to prepare for it. People will choose the truths they care about. That’s why integrity in public life is so important. I don’t think it can be an absolute in practice, politicians, even scientists are only human. But there must be a cost to knowingly deceiving the public, and there must be contrition, it can never be considered an acceptable practice. It can never be good enough to just point to an ideological opponent and say, well, they do it too. That’s not an argument.
- cudgy 6y ago
  So, if something is well-intentioned, it is ok to propagate falsehoods even if it degrades the trust in the institution you represent? Fauci’s (and others) actions have done huge damage to the ability of these institutions to convey information going forward and that effect will hurt the very healthcare workers he was supposedly trying to protect.
  - simonh 6y ago
    No it’s not ok, and I very clearly said so. Personally, I think he should have offered his resignation and I regret not saying so in my previous comment, but that’s what I meant by a cost. It’s a shame, I think he’s probably the best candidate for the job, but there are other was he could contribute and wilful deception on material issues can’t be allowed to become acceptable. The risks to civil society are too great.
    - cudgy 6y ago
      Yet you still think Fauci is the best for the job. Confusing.
lunatuna 6y ago
It's even more shocking that one would focus on Fauci and masks as the point of all this and not the bigger liars with the classics - this is just like the flu - everything is ok it is only a few people - we have it totally under control - lockdowns are bad and will never work - we have a plan!
- rajup 6y ago
  In your opinion (I doubt any of what you said has hard established fact to counter it), do strict lockdowns work? Or is there a spectrum of lockdown we should be considering to balance a myriad set of social, economic and health concerns? The problem is, someone asking the second question in today's hyper-polarized world is somehow equated to being an anti-science, self-serving politically motivated miscreant. Or in your words "liars".
  - lunatuna 6y ago
    Not sure to laugh or cry as this goes off topic, but from what I understand COVID transmission is caused by person to person contact of water droplets from breathing, coughing blah blah blah. No ctonact, no transmission. But we live in a half-assed world so we don't actual suffocate the spread we just make it pass out for a bit and let it start back up. This crap of "oh the things are getting better so lets loosen up" just gets it going again. But now with so much spread it will would likely have to be too aggressive for too long for reasons that would get us further off-topic from the shitty article on disinformation. But really what does Fauci have to do with this when it's only as bad as the flu and we have a plan?
  - curlypaul924 6y ago
    I have said more than once that the cost of a lockdown must be balanced with the risk it avoids, and I have never been accused of being a liar or being anti-science. But I'm also not a public figure, and I think that makes a difference.
  - pbourke 6y ago
    > In your opinion (I doubt any of what you said has hard established fact to counter it), do strict lockdowns work? After watching the results in Australia and China, I think they do.
skygazer 6y ago
He was clearly dissuading widespread mask use back in March, but what he said specifically was: "There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face." - Dr Fauci, March 8, 60 Minutes [0] I do wish he'd said, instead, that masks provide asymmetric protection -- protecting the wearer less than protecting others from the wearer, and that ideally everyone would wear masks to protect each other, but that there were extreme shortages, and that first responders needed to be the priority for now. Or, something that included enough information to remain straightforwardly valid over time despite the situational dynamics. edit -- in a July 15 interview with InStyle magazine [1] he said: "I don't regret anything I said then because in the context of the time in which I said it, it was correct..." "When it became clear that the infection could be spread by asymptomatic carriers who don't know they're infected, that made it very clear that we had to strongly recommend masks." [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-fauci-outdated-video-masks/fact-checkoutdated-video-of-fauci-saying-theres-no-reason-to-be-walking-around-with-a-mask-idUSKBN26T2TR https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-fauci-outdated-... [1] https://www.instyle.com/news/dr-fauci-says-with-all-due-modesty-i-think-im-pretty-effective https://www.instyle.com/news/dr-fauci-says-with-all-due-mode...
- JackFr 6y ago
  Please stop. He was understandably trying to prevent people from buying and using surgical masks because there was a dangerously limited supply. When the supply was secure he advocated masking. It’s this sort of talking around the issue, Jesuitical hair splitting rather than conceding what is manifest that makes discussing this so frustrating.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - js2 6y ago
    Please stop. You could have quoted his exact words so that we can each form our own opinion. You didn't, apparently because you have your own interpretation that you wish to promote here. I appreciate skygazer quoting his exact words so that I can form my own opinion. It happens to differ from yours. The world isn't black and white. New information is obtained. Sometimes experts have to change their recommendations. I, personally, do not believe Fauci was lying on 60 minutes. I think he was making a recommendation based on the information he had at the time. Soon after, that changed. He changed his recommendation.
syndacks 6y ago
Regardless of the basis for his comment, your claim as it being "for your own good", vs I dunno, the good of society is a gross misinterpretation. Your last two sentences are really off mark man, zoom out for a sec and consider maybe there was a scenario where epidemiologists got together and realized a run in PPE could have been catastrophic. It's not about you. It's about the greater good (even if maybe there was a misstep (I'm not saying there was/wasn't)).
geebee 6y ago
Would you post a link to the WaPo article that has Fauci saying that the reason he said masks are ineffective was to preserve the supply for medical staff? I would be ok with Fauci saying masks weren't effective because the best science avialable was incorrect at that time. Science can be flawed, especially early on when facing a new disease. We might not know if the virus is surface spread or airborne. We might believe that it is transmitted through droplets after a cough - something medical staff would experience much more of than people at a grocery store. There are all kinds of reasons they could be wrong. So the CDC, and Fauci, would lose no credibility with me merely by being wrong, in retrospect, if they were presenting the best answers science had that that time. Now, if the CDC deliberately misled, then it absolutely isn't fine. The CDC has authority because they are scientists. We respect and follow their advice not because we believe they are our noble leaders, or our moral betters, or know best for us, but because we believe that what they say is the truth, grounded in science. If they in fact used this trust to deliberately mislead, it would be devastating to his credibility and the credibility of the CDC for a very, very long time. For our own benefit? Perhaps, but it would still be a deep betrayal of his specific office because of the source of his authority. The CDC could say, in that case, "we believe that masks are effective, and N95 medical grade masks are best - however, there is a shortage right now. Because cloth masks can provide some protection for essential activities such as grocery shopping, and medical grade masks are essential for medical providers who will work in close proximity with many infected people, we implore the American people to allow all medical grade masks to go to medical providers, and we support regulations that require these masks be reserved for medical providers". That would be fine. But you can't represent science and truth and then lie about the science. Not if you want to be trusted ever again. To be clear, these are scenarios. I'm not sure it's entirely established that Fauci clearly knew that masks were effective for day to day non medical use and deliberately told people the opposite in order to keep them from buying masks. I've done some reading, and Fauci stumbles a lot over this - he keeps saying two things at once - that it wasn't clear that a masks were important, and that we badly needed to reserve them for medical personnel. The second statement actually badly undermines the first, IMO, because it would provide a justification for lying (even if this isn't what he did). Anyway, if you have that WaPo link, please send it. That would change how I see this situation.
- 6y ago
unityByFreedom 6y ago
> people can’t remember literally one year ago when among others Dr Fauci told us that wearing masks was ineffective in stopping the spread of the virus. He said healthy people did not need to wear one.
musicale 6y ago
Everyone also seems to have forgotten "flatten the curve" etc.. It's like we have collective amnesia.
- ghostr 6y ago
  I'm under the impression the US is still trying to do that. Big metro areas are bouncing back and forth between reopening and lack of critical care.
rrauenza 6y ago
I’ve been wondering if his messaging would have been different under the current administration - if there was a more cooperative relationship and trust where someone with more political experience might have told him that his anti mask fib might have unintended consequences.
helge9210 6y ago
> Dr Fauci told us that wearing masks was ineffective in stopping the spread of the virus. Masks are still ineffective at stopping the spread. This didn't change. What changed is governments all over the world understood the value of the way to mark the population willing to follow any stupid regulation.

by JackFr 6y ago

deathlight 6y ago

>When the Director of the CDC asserts an opinion, she has to optimize for two things - being right, and keeping power. If she doesn't optimize for the second, she gets replaced as CDC Director by someone who does. That means she's trying to solve a harder problem than Zvi is, and it makes sense that sometimes, despite having more resources than Zvi, she does worse at it. >... >I realize it doesn't sound like it, but I'm trying to excuse the CDC here. I'm not just saying they're corrupt. I'm saying they have to deal with the inevitable amount of corruption which it takes to be part of a democratic government, and they're handling it as well as they can under the circumstances. >... >Dr. Fauci (and WebMD) are legibly good (or at least legibly okay). They sit on a giant golden throne, with a giant neon arrow pointing to them saying "TRUST THIS GUY". If a random shmuck who doesn't know anything about anything Googles "who should I trust about COVID?", Google will return Dr. Fauci's name. This is a position of great power; Dr. Fauci is able to make decisions that will affect billions of dollars in wealth, Senate seats, Twitter likes, and other extremely valuable resources. Thousands of people who would prefer that they get the dollars and seats and likes will be gunning for him. In order to stay on that throne, Dr. Fauci will need to get and keep lots of powerful allies (plus be the sort of person who thinks in terms of how to get allies rather than being minimaxed for COVID-prediction). Quotes from https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/webmd-and-the-tragedy-of-legible https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/webmd-and-the-tragedy-.... I think it's a good read overall, maybe a bit long for some. I share your concerns for apparent bad public policy. Having a government that messes things up and then patronizingly dodges all criticism while lapping up unearned praise (looking at you Cuomo) is frustrating and makes people lose faith in experts and "the system". The general social and media environment we live in today is definitely not helping.

NotSammyHagar 6y ago

He also said it was a mistake later, owned up for it, as you describe.

tux1968 6y ago
I never heard him say it was a mistake, I heard him say it was a necessary lie to protect supplies of masks. Do you have a link to where he said it was a mistake? Maybe I just missed it? And a quick google shows this: https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-doesnt-regret-advising-against-masks-early-in-pandemic-2020-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-doesnt-regret-advising...
Avicebron 6y ago
I'm not sure you can say anything is a mistake if you then release a statement saying "why I did it". it just comes off as an accidental card tip to what's really going on

dabbledash 6y ago

It isn’t fine. At a time when being able to trust public health officials is so important, to see officials blow their credibility with this kind of thing is incredibly frustrating. If was stupid anyway. “Masks don’t work and also we need them for healthcare workers.” Did anyone actually believe this?

simonh 6y ago
It depends on the masks. Health care workers on COVID wards use high spec masks, N95 or equivalent, and they do seem to be very effective. The kind of open sided masks most of the public use have limited evidence of effectiveness. Similarly the face shields are intended to protect from projectile slater of body fluids from patients coughing explosively. There’s no evidence at all they provide protection from people breathing nearby but I still see people using them in public. So it’s a complex issue. I do support mask wearing in public. It certainly doesn’t do any harm and I think it encourages good habits and makes people think about what they do and why. I suspect if they are effective, at least some of that effectiveness comes from those peripheral effects. Still, every little helps.
- cudgy 6y ago
  “I do support mask wearing in public. It certainly doesn’t do any harm and I think it encourages good habits and makes people think about what they do and why.” Very simplistic statement. What is “in public”? How is touching a mask (and therefore your face) constantly a guaranteed win? Why has the virus not raged incredibly in locations with fewer mask mandates? Would it make more sense to require masks “in private” where people are in closer contact? Requiring them outside “in public” where people are spaced out is symbolic and authoritarian; it makes people like you feel better. Hardly a reason for a policy.
  - simonh 6y ago
    Did you miss where I said it’s a complex issue?
  - matwood 6y ago

simonh 6y ago

Yes , I agree. I think Fauci was well intentioned and had his reasons, but there must be a cost to wilfully deceiving the public. I can understand it in wartime when the deception is really aimed at the enemy, but this isn’t that. The fact is though, people are willing to accept being lied to by people they otherwise view favourably. For example a lot of the people decrying Fauci as a liar support Trump, who at the beginning of the pandemic was telling a journalist in private how the coronavirus was deadly and more dangerous than the worst flus, but in public at the same time was saying it was a hoax and nothing to worry about, and obstructing efforts to prepare for it. People will choose the truths they care about. That’s why integrity in public life is so important. I don’t think it can be an absolute in practice, politicians, even scientists are only human. But there must be a cost to knowingly deceiving the public, and there must be contrition, it can never be considered an acceptable practice. It can never be good enough to just point to an ideological opponent and say, well, they do it too. That’s not an argument.

cudgy 6y ago
So, if something is well-intentioned, it is ok to propagate falsehoods even if it degrades the trust in the institution you represent? Fauci’s (and others) actions have done huge damage to the ability of these institutions to convey information going forward and that effect will hurt the very healthcare workers he was supposedly trying to protect.
- simonh 6y ago
  No it’s not ok, and I very clearly said so. Personally, I think he should have offered his resignation and I regret not saying so in my previous comment, but that’s what I meant by a cost. It’s a shame, I think he’s probably the best candidate for the job, but there are other was he could contribute and wilful deception on material issues can’t be allowed to become acceptable. The risks to civil society are too great.
  - cudgy 6y ago
    Yet you still think Fauci is the best for the job. Confusing.

lunatuna 6y ago

It's even more shocking that one would focus on Fauci and masks as the point of all this and not the bigger liars with the classics - this is just like the flu - everything is ok it is only a few people - we have it totally under control - lockdowns are bad and will never work - we have a plan!

rajup 6y ago
In your opinion (I doubt any of what you said has hard established fact to counter it), do strict lockdowns work? Or is there a spectrum of lockdown we should be considering to balance a myriad set of social, economic and health concerns? The problem is, someone asking the second question in today's hyper-polarized world is somehow equated to being an anti-science, self-serving politically motivated miscreant. Or in your words "liars".
- lunatuna 6y ago
  Not sure to laugh or cry as this goes off topic, but from what I understand COVID transmission is caused by person to person contact of water droplets from breathing, coughing blah blah blah. No ctonact, no transmission. But we live in a half-assed world so we don't actual suffocate the spread we just make it pass out for a bit and let it start back up. This crap of "oh the things are getting better so lets loosen up" just gets it going again. But now with so much spread it will would likely have to be too aggressive for too long for reasons that would get us further off-topic from the shitty article on disinformation. But really what does Fauci have to do with this when it's only as bad as the flu and we have a plan?
- curlypaul924 6y ago
  I have said more than once that the cost of a lockdown must be balanced with the risk it avoids, and I have never been accused of being a liar or being anti-science. But I'm also not a public figure, and I think that makes a difference.
- pbourke 6y ago
  > In your opinion (I doubt any of what you said has hard established fact to counter it), do strict lockdowns work? After watching the results in Australia and China, I think they do.

skygazer 6y ago

He was clearly dissuading widespread mask use back in March, but what he said specifically was: "There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face." - Dr Fauci, March 8, 60 Minutes [0] I do wish he'd said, instead, that masks provide asymmetric protection -- protecting the wearer less than protecting others from the wearer, and that ideally everyone would wear masks to protect each other, but that there were extreme shortages, and that first responders needed to be the priority for now. Or, something that included enough information to remain straightforwardly valid over time despite the situational dynamics. edit -- in a July 15 interview with InStyle magazine [1] he said: "I don't regret anything I said then because in the context of the time in which I said it, it was correct..." "When it became clear that the infection could be spread by asymptomatic carriers who don't know they're infected, that made it very clear that we had to strongly recommend masks." [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-fauci-outdated-video-masks/fact-checkoutdated-video-of-fauci-saying-theres-no-reason-to-be-walking-around-with-a-mask-idUSKBN26T2TR https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-fauci-outdated-... [1] https://www.instyle.com/news/dr-fauci-says-with-all-due-modesty-i-think-im-pretty-effective https://www.instyle.com/news/dr-fauci-says-with-all-due-mode...

JackFr 6y ago
Please stop. He was understandably trying to prevent people from buying and using surgical masks because there was a dangerously limited supply. When the supply was secure he advocated masking. It’s this sort of talking around the issue, Jesuitical hair splitting rather than conceding what is manifest that makes discussing this so frustrating.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- js2 6y ago
  Please stop. You could have quoted his exact words so that we can each form our own opinion. You didn't, apparently because you have your own interpretation that you wish to promote here. I appreciate skygazer quoting his exact words so that I can form my own opinion. It happens to differ from yours. The world isn't black and white. New information is obtained. Sometimes experts have to change their recommendations. I, personally, do not believe Fauci was lying on 60 minutes. I think he was making a recommendation based on the information he had at the time. Soon after, that changed. He changed his recommendation.

syndacks 6y ago

Regardless of the basis for his comment, your claim as it being "for your own good", vs I dunno, the good of society is a gross misinterpretation. Your last two sentences are really off mark man, zoom out for a sec and consider maybe there was a scenario where epidemiologists got together and realized a run in PPE could have been catastrophic. It's not about you. It's about the greater good (even if maybe there was a misstep (I'm not saying there was/wasn't)).

geebee 6y ago

Would you post a link to the WaPo article that has Fauci saying that the reason he said masks are ineffective was to preserve the supply for medical staff? I would be ok with Fauci saying masks weren't effective because the best science avialable was incorrect at that time. Science can be flawed, especially early on when facing a new disease. We might not know if the virus is surface spread or airborne. We might believe that it is transmitted through droplets after a cough - something medical staff would experience much more of than people at a grocery store. There are all kinds of reasons they could be wrong. So the CDC, and Fauci, would lose no credibility with me merely by being wrong, in retrospect, if they were presenting the best answers science had that that time. Now, if the CDC deliberately misled, then it absolutely isn't fine. The CDC has authority because they are scientists. We respect and follow their advice not because we believe they are our noble leaders, or our moral betters, or know best for us, but because we believe that what they say is the truth, grounded in science. If they in fact used this trust to deliberately mislead, it would be devastating to his credibility and the credibility of the CDC for a very, very long time. For our own benefit? Perhaps, but it would still be a deep betrayal of his specific office because of the source of his authority. The CDC could say, in that case, "we believe that masks are effective, and N95 medical grade masks are best - however, there is a shortage right now. Because cloth masks can provide some protection for essential activities such as grocery shopping, and medical grade masks are essential for medical providers who will work in close proximity with many infected people, we implore the American people to allow all medical grade masks to go to medical providers, and we support regulations that require these masks be reserved for medical providers". That would be fine. But you can't represent science and truth and then lie about the science. Not if you want to be trusted ever again. To be clear, these are scenarios. I'm not sure it's entirely established that Fauci clearly knew that masks were effective for day to day non medical use and deliberately told people the opposite in order to keep them from buying masks. I've done some reading, and Fauci stumbles a lot over this - he keeps saying two things at once - that it wasn't clear that a masks were important, and that we badly needed to reserve them for medical personnel. The second statement actually badly undermines the first, IMO, because it would provide a justification for lying (even if this isn't what he did). Anyway, if you have that WaPo link, please send it. That would change how I see this situation.

6y ago

unityByFreedom 6y ago

> people can’t remember literally one year ago when among others Dr Fauci told us that wearing masks was ineffective in stopping the spread of the virus. He said healthy people did not need to wear one.

musicale 6y ago

Everyone also seems to have forgotten "flatten the curve" etc.. It's like we have collective amnesia.

ghostr 6y ago
I'm under the impression the US is still trying to do that. Big metro areas are bouncing back and forth between reopening and lack of critical care.

rrauenza 6y ago

I’ve been wondering if his messaging would have been different under the current administration - if there was a more cooperative relationship and trust where someone with more political experience might have told him that his anti mask fib might have unintended consequences.

helge9210 6y ago

> Dr Fauci told us that wearing masks was ineffective in stopping the spread of the virus. Masks are still ineffective at stopping the spread. This didn't change. What changed is governments all over the world understood the value of the way to mark the population willing to follow any stupid regulation.