35 ms·

It's pretty clear objectively that Fauci did a lot of lying and misleading. 1. Fauci admitted on TV that he'd been misleading the public about herd immunity nu

It's pretty clear objectively that Fauci did a lot of lying and misleading. 1. Fauci admitted on TV that he'd been misleading the public about herd immunity numbers. He said he'd painted a rosier picture than reality in order to avoid making the world fear that we could never overcome the pandemic. -- https://thenationaltelegraph.com/opinion/dr-fauci-admits-to-lying-about-herd-immunity/ https://thenationaltelegraph.com/opinion/dr-fauci-admits-to-... 2. Fauci admitted in Congressional hearing that the 6-foot social distancing rule was made up, with no experimental evidence. -- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/06/03/anthony-fauci-house-hearing-covid-response/73955411007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/06/03/anthon... 3. Slightly more controversially, Fauci misled us by dissembling under questioning by Sen. Paul. By a strict technocratic definition that nobody he was talking to was privy to, he told the truth when he steadfastly maintained that there had been no GoF research. But by the plain meaning of the words, he was clearly lying. -- https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/04/fauci-says-rand-paul-egregiously-incorrect-about-gain-of-function-research.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/04/fauci-says-rand-paul-egregio... I'm not sure these citations are the best, I don't have time to read through all of it, but hopefully it's illustrative.

epistasis 11mo ago
Reading your links, I see lots of emotion and twisting of statements, and not much honest searching for the truth. I see a need to mock and ostracize and to try to twist others' statements and words. Do you not see that too? If there are better links to support your incendiary phrasing of points, it may help get the point across better. But I'm not sure you can find something that's not trying to misrepresent and sensationalize the issue.
- CWuestefeld 11mo ago
  It seems pretty clear to me. For #1, about herd immunity numbers, consider the below. I don't see any space for interpretation here: Fauci flat-out admitted to changing what he told the public in order to manipulate their (our!) behavior: In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent estimate that most experts did. About a month ago, he began saying “70, 75 percent” in television interviews. And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.” In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks. [...]Dr. Fauci said that weeks ago, he had hesitated to publicly raise his estimate because many Americans seemed hesitant about vaccines, which they would need to accept almost universally in order for the country to achieve herd immunity. “When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “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,” he added. “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.” -- https://archive.is/20210305032312/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html https://archive.is/20210305032312/https://www.nytimes.com/20... Regarding #2, this is also pretty clear. Here's another citation, which also seems pretty clear. The 6ft social distancing guidance enforced in the US during the Covid pandemic “sort of just appeared”, Dr Anthony Fauci, the former White House medical adviser, has admitted. It was “likely not based on data”, Dr Fauci conceded in a behind-closed-doors session of the House select subcommittee on the Coronavirus pandemic. -- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/01/12/anthony-fauci-covid-6ft-distancing-not-backed-data-usa/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/01/12/anthony-fa... For #3, I acknowledged from the start that this is more subjective. If we judge solely by academic jargon, then Fauci was telling the truth. The thing is, it's not reasonable to judge solely by that academic jargon when Fauci wasn't talking to fellow members of the academy. He was being questioned by Congress, and one expects an intelligent guy like him to be able to communicate effectively. When speaking to politicians and ultimately to the public, he should be aware of the language he uses. EDIT: Sorry to jump back into the same post. But I want to emphasize that the root question we're arguing about here is loss of trust. We don't need a mathematically airtight proof that Fauci was lying. I just need to demonstrate that the institution, and Fauci specifically, said things that for reasonable listeners could be construed in ways that destroyed trust. I think what I've illustrated clears that threshold easily.
  - jauntywundrkind 11mo ago
    It feels like trying to crucify a man for not being able to bring a desired/claimed level of nuance, to what was a confusing emerging deeply troubled time. You might be factually right that the story changed over time. But to me, none of these feel like misdeeds. They seem like reasonable & adequate (outright necessary?) steps taken along a hard road we all faced. What would you have had Faucci do during #1 & #2?
    - CWuestefeld 11mo ago
      What would you have had Faucci do during #1 & #2? I'd have him not lie. At a minimum, if he thought that the truth would drive counterproductive behavior, he should have at least kept his mouth shut. But as a public servant, one of the leaders in our democracy, I think he owes it to us to actually tell us the truth, even when it doesn't seem to serve his immediate goals. HN is usually pretty positive on democratic principles, that it should be We The People driving rather than elites. But when the democracy is being steered behind the scenes, being misled into provoking us into the behaviors that the elites think are best for us, then that democracy is in name only. Functionally we've then become an oligarchy.
- nohuck13 11mo ago
  You've been around HN a long time. You know that responding to tone is frowned upon here. If there are statements in those links you think were twisted just say how.

epistasis 11mo ago

Reading your links, I see lots of emotion and twisting of statements, and not much honest searching for the truth. I see a need to mock and ostracize and to try to twist others' statements and words. Do you not see that too? If there are better links to support your incendiary phrasing of points, it may help get the point across better. But I'm not sure you can find something that's not trying to misrepresent and sensationalize the issue.

CWuestefeld 11mo ago
It seems pretty clear to me. For #1, about herd immunity numbers, consider the below. I don't see any space for interpretation here: Fauci flat-out admitted to changing what he told the public in order to manipulate their (our!) behavior: In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent estimate that most experts did. About a month ago, he began saying “70, 75 percent” in television interviews. And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.” In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks. [...]Dr. Fauci said that weeks ago, he had hesitated to publicly raise his estimate because many Americans seemed hesitant about vaccines, which they would need to accept almost universally in order for the country to achieve herd immunity. “When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “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,” he added. “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.” -- https://archive.is/20210305032312/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html https://archive.is/20210305032312/https://www.nytimes.com/20... Regarding #2, this is also pretty clear. Here's another citation, which also seems pretty clear. The 6ft social distancing guidance enforced in the US during the Covid pandemic “sort of just appeared”, Dr Anthony Fauci, the former White House medical adviser, has admitted. It was “likely not based on data”, Dr Fauci conceded in a behind-closed-doors session of the House select subcommittee on the Coronavirus pandemic. -- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/01/12/anthony-fauci-covid-6ft-distancing-not-backed-data-usa/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/01/12/anthony-fa... For #3, I acknowledged from the start that this is more subjective. If we judge solely by academic jargon, then Fauci was telling the truth. The thing is, it's not reasonable to judge solely by that academic jargon when Fauci wasn't talking to fellow members of the academy. He was being questioned by Congress, and one expects an intelligent guy like him to be able to communicate effectively. When speaking to politicians and ultimately to the public, he should be aware of the language he uses. EDIT: Sorry to jump back into the same post. But I want to emphasize that the root question we're arguing about here is loss of trust. We don't need a mathematically airtight proof that Fauci was lying. I just need to demonstrate that the institution, and Fauci specifically, said things that for reasonable listeners could be construed in ways that destroyed trust. I think what I've illustrated clears that threshold easily.
- jauntywundrkind 11mo ago
  It feels like trying to crucify a man for not being able to bring a desired/claimed level of nuance, to what was a confusing emerging deeply troubled time. You might be factually right that the story changed over time. But to me, none of these feel like misdeeds. They seem like reasonable & adequate (outright necessary?) steps taken along a hard road we all faced. What would you have had Faucci do during #1 & #2?
  - CWuestefeld 11mo ago
    What would you have had Faucci do during #1 & #2? I'd have him not lie. At a minimum, if he thought that the truth would drive counterproductive behavior, he should have at least kept his mouth shut. But as a public servant, one of the leaders in our democracy, I think he owes it to us to actually tell us the truth, even when it doesn't seem to serve his immediate goals. HN is usually pretty positive on democratic principles, that it should be We The People driving rather than elites. But when the democracy is being steered behind the scenes, being misled into provoking us into the behaviors that the elites think are best for us, then that democracy is in name only. Functionally we've then become an oligarchy.
nohuck13 11mo ago
You've been around HN a long time. You know that responding to tone is frowned upon here. If there are statements in those links you think were twisted just say how.