7 ms·

He said that at the time because COVID wasn't endemic all over the USA and he didn't want folks going out and hoarding all of the N95 masks which were needed at

He said that at the time because COVID wasn't endemic all over the USA and he didn't want folks going out and hoarding all of the N95 masks which were needed at the time most critically for hospital workers. Once the situation changed and everyone needed to wear a mask he said that folks should go out and buy masks (and after the supply gap was closed a bit).

lovecg 5y ago
Yeah he lied because he had to, and he lied later about herd immunity too. Whether it was good policy or not, I can’t assume anything he says is based on fact alone.
- wavesounds 5y ago
  They weren't sure about airborne transmission from a-symptomatic people at the time. Delta variant has a higher r0 than alpha, so the herd immunity numbers change. Saying he's purposefully lying because the facts on the ground change is ridiculous.
  - knodi123 5y ago
    > Saying he's purposefully lying because the facts on the ground change is ridiculous Yeah, but it's fair to say he's purposefully lying because he told us he was purposefully lying. https://www.axios.com/fauci-goalposts-herd-immunity-c83c7500-d8f9-4960-a334-06cc03d9a220.html https://www.axios.com/fauci-goalposts-herd-immunity-c83c7500... Here's the direct quote: > When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent ... Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, "I can nudge this up a bit," so I went to 80, 85. We need to have some humility here .... We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I'm not going to say 90 percent."
    - wavesounds 5y ago
      Talk about making a mountain of a mole hill. There's a range of possible values that the science supports and he said a number in that range when asked what he thinks.
    - alexpw 5y ago
      So it's a white lie, at most, because he was always accurate. He stayed within the "real range" of 70-90, but he varied based on what people could tolerate hearing. If he said 70-90%, then people may only hear 90 and think no way we'll get there. Sounds reasonable. If people hear we'll never get herd immunity due to delta and the potential for new variants, will more people get it or will it eliminate a reason for some to get it?
    - betterunix2 5y ago
      ...where is the false statement? Fauci gave one estimate, then gave another more conservative estimate in an attempt to encourage people to get the vaccine. At no point did he give a number out of the range supported by the available data. Calling that "purposefully lying" is ridiculous. People who have to present a single number to summarize an entire body of scientific research for the general public always have to make a decision about how conservative of an estimate to give.
      - knodi123 5y ago
        > People who have to present a single number to summarize an entire body of scientific research for the general public always have to make a decision about how conservative of an estimate to give You expect those people to make their estimate based on the scientific research, not based on what he thinks the people are "ready to hear". He literally said that the motivation for saying 80, 85 was the fact that a poll showing how many people had already been convinced to take it. It's just a fact - he was selling the vaccine. I'm not alleging a conspiracy, or shady financial motives. I'm not saying the vaccine is bad, because I think it's amazing. But Fauci gave numerical estimates that he did not believe to be accurate, for PR reasons.
        5y ago
- res0nat0r 5y ago
  No, that is incorrect.
- mr_mitm 5y ago
  Then don't listen to him, listen to the international consensus of leading health experts. That's a good guideline anyway. They just happen to say pretty much the same thing.
blub 5y ago
Folks weren't hoarding the masks, they were being bought and sent overseas, because the US didn't block exports, like for example China did. Anyway, this whole hoarding issue can be elegantly side-stepped by not outsourcing mask production and stockpiling. I assume the US government was aware of the possibility of pandemics (likely flu), just like everyone else on the planet was.
- account42 5y ago
  You could also mobilize your military (or similar) to produce masks short-term. In fact, that is what Taiwan did when most of the WHO and the so-called first world countries were still refusing to admit that there was a pandemic.

lovecg 5y ago

Yeah he lied because he had to, and he lied later about herd immunity too. Whether it was good policy or not, I can’t assume anything he says is based on fact alone.

wavesounds 5y ago
They weren't sure about airborne transmission from a-symptomatic people at the time. Delta variant has a higher r0 than alpha, so the herd immunity numbers change. Saying he's purposefully lying because the facts on the ground change is ridiculous.
- knodi123 5y ago
  > Saying he's purposefully lying because the facts on the ground change is ridiculous Yeah, but it's fair to say he's purposefully lying because he told us he was purposefully lying. https://www.axios.com/fauci-goalposts-herd-immunity-c83c7500-d8f9-4960-a334-06cc03d9a220.html https://www.axios.com/fauci-goalposts-herd-immunity-c83c7500... Here's the direct quote: > When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent ... Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, "I can nudge this up a bit," so I went to 80, 85. We need to have some humility here .... We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I'm not going to say 90 percent."
  - wavesounds 5y ago
    Talk about making a mountain of a mole hill. There's a range of possible values that the science supports and he said a number in that range when asked what he thinks.
  - alexpw 5y ago
    So it's a white lie, at most, because he was always accurate. He stayed within the "real range" of 70-90, but he varied based on what people could tolerate hearing. If he said 70-90%, then people may only hear 90 and think no way we'll get there. Sounds reasonable. If people hear we'll never get herd immunity due to delta and the potential for new variants, will more people get it or will it eliminate a reason for some to get it?
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    ...where is the false statement? Fauci gave one estimate, then gave another more conservative estimate in an attempt to encourage people to get the vaccine. At no point did he give a number out of the range supported by the available data. Calling that "purposefully lying" is ridiculous. People who have to present a single number to summarize an entire body of scientific research for the general public always have to make a decision about how conservative of an estimate to give.
    - knodi123 5y ago
      > People who have to present a single number to summarize an entire body of scientific research for the general public always have to make a decision about how conservative of an estimate to give You expect those people to make their estimate based on the scientific research, not based on what he thinks the people are "ready to hear". He literally said that the motivation for saying 80, 85 was the fact that a poll showing how many people had already been convinced to take it. It's just a fact - he was selling the vaccine. I'm not alleging a conspiracy, or shady financial motives. I'm not saying the vaccine is bad, because I think it's amazing. But Fauci gave numerical estimates that he did not believe to be accurate, for PR reasons.
      - 5y ago
res0nat0r 5y ago
No, that is incorrect.
mr_mitm 5y ago
Then don't listen to him, listen to the international consensus of leading health experts. That's a good guideline anyway. They just happen to say pretty much the same thing.

blub 5y ago

Folks weren't hoarding the masks, they were being bought and sent overseas, because the US didn't block exports, like for example China did. Anyway, this whole hoarding issue can be elegantly side-stepped by not outsourcing mask production and stockpiling. I assume the US government was aware of the possibility of pandemics (likely flu), just like everyone else on the planet was.

account42 5y ago
You could also mobilize your military (or similar) to produce masks short-term. In fact, that is what Taiwan did when most of the WHO and the so-called first world countries were still refusing to admit that there was a pandemic.