4 ms·

Thanks, but he did not claim all of what you claimed though. I remember more reasons than that for why experts recommended masks to go to qualified personell. W

• kcplate 5y ago
  He conveyed in that clip that his advice about public masking was influenced by the need to preserve PPE due to what was expected to be shortages needed for Covid care if the public was to panic purchase surgical masks. If the concern was for preservation of masks for the protection of healthcare workers, then they have some degree of efficacy and he was aware of that fact. So his conveying that they did not provide efficacy to the public to preserve the PPE was being intentionally misleading. You may agree with his decision or his logic behind the misdirection, but it was most certainly a lie by its most pure definition. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie
  • loopz 5y ago
    So what did he actually say when he allegedly "lied"? Or was it that explicitly Fauci, missed to say something, and why just him and not the entire medical profession? Was the environment fertile for healthy discussion, as it was in our country? With accusations like that, there better be real quotes behind it, not just statements after the fact. 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.
    • kcplate 5y ago
      There and elsewhere (specifically regarding herd immunity) Fauci has conveyed that he misled the public intentionally. I am not passing judgement on the public value of his decisions to mislead, only that it is a fact that he intentionally mislead the public. 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.
      • loopz 5y ago
        He says no such thing though, that's a strawman. There will typically be many reason, for and against, official policies, not just one. So there's no reason to jump to conclusions. In situations such as this, mistakes are bound to happen too, as many policies had to be made up on the spot. It is human nature to fail sometimes, so the occasional mishap are excused and not taken in bad faith for the smallest of slights. 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.