3 ms·

You cherry picked a video from April after he changed his mind. Here's what he said in March. "There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re

You cherry picked a video from April after he changed his mind. Here's what he said in March. "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." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRa6t_e7dgI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRa6t_e7dgI

dataflow 5y ago
First, no, I didn't cherry-pick anything, it was literally the first video I saw when I searched on YouTube. I certainly didn't even recall your video. Second, if you're going to accuse cherry-picking, look at the very crucial quotes you omitted from your own clip: - Right before your quote he had added very critical qualifiers that you skipped: He specifically said, "Right now, in the United States, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask." Mind you, this was on March 8, pre-lockdown. He explicitly made it clear this guidance could change as the situation evolves (or, as you wrote, "change his mind" should he get more data or see circumstances change... how horrifying!), and he specifically said in the United States, likely because the epidemic was much less severe than it became in the following weeks (it wasn't even declared a pandemic yet!), so they thought it could be better handled without telling everyone to wear masks. He clearly genuinely believed at the time that the protection they would be likely to provide would be small compared to the benefits of saving them for hospitals. - Also note that he continued to provide context: "When you think masks, you should think of healthcare providers needing them, and people who are ill." Again, he's explaining his concerns. You can't ignore that. - Also note that he even specifically explained: "When you look at the films of foreign countries and you see 85% of people wearing masks, that's fine, that's fine. I'm not against it. But that's when it can lead to a shortage of masks for people who need it." i.e.: If he wasn't worried about a shortage, he wouldn't be telling people not to wear masks. You can't honestly hear all that and accuse him (or me...) of dishonesty with that clip.
- choward 5y ago
  > "Right now, in the United States, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask." And when he did decide we should be walking around with masks he didn't cite any evidence. He said it was because surgical and N95s masks were in short supply. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XHC5Kxxv_w&t=94s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XHC5Kxxv_w&t=94s When I was trying to find this video, I came across another video where he speaks in absolute terms that all we need to do is wears masks, social distance and practice good hygiene we would turn around the pandemic. I understand that things change over time, but whenever he speaks, he speaks as if what he is saying is fact. Now we even have vaccines and we clearly haven't turned it around. This is why people don't trust this guy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P6QrVRJJzU&t=128s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P6QrVRJJzU&t=128s I honestly don't see how you can watch all these videos and still trust this guy. I get that things change, but that's why you don't speak in absolute terms. Words matter.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    I'm not saying I "trust" him (or don't). I'm saying I've seen no evidence he's been lying, trying to mislead the public, or whatever other maligned accusations people have been hurling at him all over the internet. When something looks like an honest mistake, why cut into others' characters instead of just calling it out as an honest mistake? Especially with half-quoted clips like that? Say he was wrong all you want (though I highly doubt you would've been a better NIH director). But don't cut into his character without evidence (or mine, for that matter). Not only does it take a lot of audacity to suggest you would've foreseen things better than someone who's spent his life dealing with epidemics (and not all unsuccessfully so), but hurling unfounded accusations like that at everyone whose judgment you don't like is just infuriating, insulting, and unproductive.
    - choward 5y ago
      > When it looks like an honest mistake, why call it a lie instead of an honest mistake? I linked you to evidence that shows he lied. In the first video he said masks don't work. It clearly wasn't an "honest mistake". > I highly doubt you would've been a better NIH director Nice strawman. I never said I would be, but I know one thing for sure: I wouldn't deliberately lie to the American public about something so important. > But don't cut into his character without evidence There is plenty of evidence that he's a liar. I don't know what else you need. > Not only does it take a lot of audacity to suggest you would've foreseen things better Yet another strawman. I never said that. Are you replying to the right comment? > hurling unfounded accusations like that at everyone whose judgment you don't like is just infuriating, insulting, and unproductive The accusation that Fauci deliberately lied? It's pretty founded if you ask me. It's infuriating, insulting, and unproductive to protect someone so obsessively and thinking he can do no wrong.

dataflow 5y ago

First, no, I didn't cherry-pick anything, it was literally the first video I saw when I searched on YouTube. I certainly didn't even recall your video. Second, if you're going to accuse cherry-picking, look at the very crucial quotes you omitted from your own clip: - Right before your quote he had added very critical qualifiers that you skipped: He specifically said, "Right now, in the United States, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask." Mind you, this was on March 8, pre-lockdown. He explicitly made it clear this guidance could change as the situation evolves (or, as you wrote, "change his mind" should he get more data or see circumstances change... how horrifying!), and he specifically said in the United States, likely because the epidemic was much less severe than it became in the following weeks (it wasn't even declared a pandemic yet!), so they thought it could be better handled without telling everyone to wear masks. He clearly genuinely believed at the time that the protection they would be likely to provide would be small compared to the benefits of saving them for hospitals. - Also note that he continued to provide context: "When you think masks, you should think of healthcare providers needing them, and people who are ill." Again, he's explaining his concerns. You can't ignore that. - Also note that he even specifically explained: "When you look at the films of foreign countries and you see 85% of people wearing masks, that's fine, that's fine. I'm not against it. But that's when it can lead to a shortage of masks for people who need it." i.e.: If he wasn't worried about a shortage, he wouldn't be telling people not to wear masks. You can't honestly hear all that and accuse him (or me...) of dishonesty with that clip.

choward 5y ago
> "Right now, in the United States, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask." And when he did decide we should be walking around with masks he didn't cite any evidence. He said it was because surgical and N95s masks were in short supply. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XHC5Kxxv_w&t=94s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XHC5Kxxv_w&t=94s When I was trying to find this video, I came across another video where he speaks in absolute terms that all we need to do is wears masks, social distance and practice good hygiene we would turn around the pandemic. I understand that things change over time, but whenever he speaks, he speaks as if what he is saying is fact. Now we even have vaccines and we clearly haven't turned it around. This is why people don't trust this guy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P6QrVRJJzU&t=128s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P6QrVRJJzU&t=128s I honestly don't see how you can watch all these videos and still trust this guy. I get that things change, but that's why you don't speak in absolute terms. Words matter.
- dataflow 5y ago
  I'm not saying I "trust" him (or don't). I'm saying I've seen no evidence he's been lying, trying to mislead the public, or whatever other maligned accusations people have been hurling at him all over the internet. When something looks like an honest mistake, why cut into others' characters instead of just calling it out as an honest mistake? Especially with half-quoted clips like that? Say he was wrong all you want (though I highly doubt you would've been a better NIH director). But don't cut into his character without evidence (or mine, for that matter). Not only does it take a lot of audacity to suggest you would've foreseen things better than someone who's spent his life dealing with epidemics (and not all unsuccessfully so), but hurling unfounded accusations like that at everyone whose judgment you don't like is just infuriating, insulting, and unproductive.
  - choward 5y ago
    > When it looks like an honest mistake, why call it a lie instead of an honest mistake? I linked you to evidence that shows he lied. In the first video he said masks don't work. It clearly wasn't an "honest mistake". > I highly doubt you would've been a better NIH director Nice strawman. I never said I would be, but I know one thing for sure: I wouldn't deliberately lie to the American public about something so important. > But don't cut into his character without evidence There is plenty of evidence that he's a liar. I don't know what else you need. > Not only does it take a lot of audacity to suggest you would've foreseen things better Yet another strawman. I never said that. Are you replying to the right comment? > hurling unfounded accusations like that at everyone whose judgment you don't like is just infuriating, insulting, and unproductive The accusation that Fauci deliberately lied? It's pretty founded if you ask me. It's infuriating, insulting, and unproductive to protect someone so obsessively and thinking he can do no wrong.