D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:Mothra said:A little revisionist history here...bear2be2 said:Sam Lowry said:Asymptomatic people need to mask because we now know they're one of the most significant factors in spreading the disease. We also know more about the importance of airborne particles as opposed to fomites.Mothra said:It's certainly what he suggested. He said masks "might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet," but then suggested even what limited protection if any the mask provides would be offset by people fidgeting with it.Sam Lowry said:He didn't say that. He did downplay them.Mothra said:If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?Sam Lowry said:He said "right now," as of March 8, there was no reason for people without symptoms to go around with masks. He also said masks were important for sick people and health care workers. They were recommended for the general public as we became more aware of asymptomatic and aerosol transmission.Mothra said:Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.Sam Lowry said:
The discussion of Fauci is misleading. The fact that he wanted to save masks for health care workers wasn't a later admission; it was what he said all along:Quote:
LaPook, March 8: There's a lot of confusion among people, and misinformation, surrounding face masks. Can you discuss that?
Fauci: The masks are important for someone who's infected to prevent them from infecting someone else Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.
LaPook: You're sure of it? Because people are listening really closely to this.
Fauci: 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.
LaPook: And can you get some schmutz, sort of staying inside there?
Fauci: Of course, of course. But, when you think masks, you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people who, when you look at the films of foreign countries and you see 85% of the people wearing masks - that's fine, that's fine. I'm not against it. If you want to do it, that's fine.
LaPook: But it can lead to a shortage of masks?
Fauci: Exactly, that's the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it.
Weeks later he reversed course on masks and claimed they were needed for protection, and recommended govt. mask-wearing mandates to the public. Either he lied or he was mistaken in his initial assessment. The former appears much more likely.
So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?
This isn't nearly as hard as some are making it. There were two reasons they recommended against masks early on -- scarcity of PPE at the time and a focus on the contracton of the virus rather than the spread. Once those two things changed, their recommendations changed, and Trump's own surgeon general laid out a really clear case for why at the time.
Unfortunately, people's minds don't change with the facts. Humans are an innately irrational species.
Fauci suggested the masks were not effective, and said they may catch the occasional drop of saliva. How then is a mask ineffective to prevent oral transmission - as Fauci suggested - now effective to prevent airborne transmission? Help this "irrational" guy understand the logic.
He didn't say that. You've created a narrative based on faulty facts.
And again, Trump's surgeon general laid out a clear and concise case at the time for why the mask recommendations were changed. You can google it now and find out exactly what was actually said and why.
No, he really hasn't. Fauci, in an attempt to protect the supply of PPE, downplayed the potential effectiveness of masks in March 2020. That is a fair reading of what he said. I don't think you'll find a lot of demonstrably false statements in his interview, but the emphasis and framing was such that it created the impression that masks were more of a pacifier and may actually do more harm than good.
More recently, he raised his estimate of what percentage of the population needed to be vaccinated for her immunity to take hold based on higher numbers of people saying they were willing to take the vaccine. It makes me wonder whether he really has any idea what actually would provide herd immunity.
Context is important. If you guys want to play semantic games to make claims that were addressed and refute recommendations that were revised 10 or 11 months ago, be my guest. I don't see the value in it personally, but it's your prerogative.
When addressing scientific claims or seeking recommendations, I find it's typically more useful to go with the most current data available. Relitigating what was said and by whom before we had any real knowledge of what we were up against doesn't really interest me much.
If you want to argue that Anthony Fauci has been wrong about things throughout the pandemic, fine. I don't think anyone would refute that. But to ignore important context and key revisions that were well explained contemporaneously to build a bad faith case against his expertise or the efficacy of masks speaks to agenda beyond the pursuit of truth.