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

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.