> I am arguing that all the science around viral transmission generally, influenza, bird flus, mask densities, aerosol spread of saliva and particles, etc ... A

> I am arguing that all the science around viral transmission generally, influenza, bird flus, mask densities, aerosol spread of saliva and particles, etc ... All any human being can do in that situation is form a hypothesis based on similar, but not perfectly similar, previous experiences. Yes, it's understandable why you believe that Fauci and other public health officials must have been basing their rules on prior experience. That's what reasonable people would do, it's what reasonable people would expect others to do. Unfortunately, what we're saying and even what Fauci is clearly saying in this transcript is that they didn't do this. To repeat: yes, we want scientists to give their best advice (with reasonably accurate confidence ratings) based on their prior experience even if there's no time to do an in depth study right away. That's exactly why people are mad. Public health people said that's what they were doing - relying on their knowledge of the past to inform the present - but it wasn't. If you review the pre-COVID science on respiratory viruses (like I did) you'll find that what it said was: 1. Lockdowns won't work. SARS-1 could move between buildings on air currents. People have been observed to spontaneously get a cold even when entirely isolated and with no exposure to anyone else who was sick or any contaminated objects (see [1] for an example). 2. Border controls won't work. 3. There's no evidence masks would work (so in science we assume the null hypothesis of no effect). 4. Vaccines also won't work. Coronaviruses mutate too fast and evolve beyond any immunity. 5. Scientists don't understand the epidemiology of respiratory illness and can't model them successfully. 6. Past coronavirus pandemics ended when the virus mutated into a more infectious but less serious form. The literature was very depressing. Nothing worked and nobody understood why not. In other words: there's a fundamental theoretical gap and no pre-existing understanding of any value, also, no time to try and obtain that new understanding. Therefore science was of little use during COVID. People like Fauci, who are paid nice salaries because they claim to be scientific, are very strongly incentivized to not conclude this. It's the old saw about getting a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it. People want to hear that the experts have it all under control. They don't want to hear "the scientific understanding to date can't help us". Yet, that's what true scientists should have said. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/an-outbreak-of-common-colds-at-an-antarctic-base-after-seventeen-weeks-of-complete-isolation/1D3A49463583D06CEACE1CCF9C1A25B4 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-inf...