D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

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.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

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.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

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.

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

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.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

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.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

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.

---

Has the science of mask effectiveness changed since Fauci made these statements?

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

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.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

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.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

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.

---

His reasons for saying what he did are irrelevant. I won't continue to mince words, but the bottom line is - at a minimum - he gave the impression that masks were not effective.

And once again, there is no explanation as to why an ineffective mask would prevent the spread of an airborne virus.

---

The explanation is that you and he are thinking about effectiveness in different ways. From an individual point of view, I don't have much trust in masks. I still wear them, but assuming they work maybe half the time, that doesn't give me a lot of confidence. I have a great deal of trust in masks as a public health measure. Even if they only work half the time, that can have huge benefits in terms of slowing the spread, reducing the number of people who ultimately get sick, and saving lives. That's what Fauci is talking about as a scientist and a policy advisor.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

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.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

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.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

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.

---

Aerosols stay in the air a lot longer than droplets. It isn't that masks don't protect against droplets. It's just that Fauci didn't think the benefit was worth the cost at that time.

---

If masks don't work on aerosols, why did Fauci go from suggesting masks are ineffective to supporting mask mandates after we learned the virus is transmissible by air?

---

They do work on aerosols.

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

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.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

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.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

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.

---

Has the science of mask effectiveness changed since Fauci made these statements?

---

Yes it has. We've had numerous studies authorized that have confirmed that masks do, indeed, reduce the distance droplets travel and that widespread mask use does reduce the spread of the virus between people.

But a better question for the sake of this discussion is have the circumstances surrounding masks in the United States changed? And the answer to that, obviously, is yes. We now have masks readily available for everyone, which was not the case this time last year. And that is precisely why Fauci recommended against the casual use of masks in the early stages of this pandemic.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

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.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

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.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

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.

---

His reasons for saying what he did are irrelevant. I won't continue to mince words, but the bottom line is - at a minimum - he gave the impression that masks were not effective.

And once again, there is no explanation as to why an ineffective mask would prevent the spread of an airborne virus.

---

The explanation is that you and he are thinking about effectiveness in different ways. From an individual point of view, I don't have much trust in masks. I still wear them, but assuming they work maybe half the time, that doesn't give me a lot of confidence. I have a great deal of trust in masks as a public health measure. Even if they only work half the time, that can have huge benefits in terms of slowing the spread, reducing the number of people who ultimately get sick, and saving lives. That's what Fauci is talking about as a scientist and a policy advisor.

---

If he had suggested they were effective half of the time, that would be one thing, but he suggested they were ineffective. So the question is, what does he really believe? Does he believe they are as ineffective as the impression he gave originally? Or was he intentionally deceptive about their effectiveness in order to prevent a supply problem?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

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.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

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.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

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.

---

Aerosols stay in the air a lot longer than droplets. It isn't that masks don't protect against droplets. It's just that Fauci didn't think the benefit was worth the cost at that time.

---

If masks don't work on aerosols, why did Fauci go from suggesting masks are ineffective to supporting mask mandates after we learned the virus is transmissible by air?

---

They do work on aerosols.

---

Do you think that Fauci was unaware of this at the time he made his comments?

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. %A0Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection. %A0

Weeks later he reversed course on masks and claimed they were needed for protection, and recommended govt. mask-wearing mandates to the public. %A0Either he lied or he was mistaken in his initial assessment. %A0The former appears much more likely.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

It's certainly what he suggested. %A0He 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. %A0

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

Fauci suggested the masks were not effective, and said they may catch the occasional drop of saliva. %A0How then is a mask ineffective to prevent oral transmission - as Fauci suggested - now effective to prevent airborne transmission? %A0Help 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 %A0addressed 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.

---

Has the science of mask effectiveness changed since Fauci made these statements? %A0

---

Yes it has. We've had numerous studies authorized that have confirmed that masks do, indeed, reduce the distance droplets travel and that widespread mask use does reduce the spread of the virus between people.

But a better question for the sake of this discussion is have the circumstances surrounding masks in the United States changed? And the answer to that, obviously, is yes. We now have masks readily available for everyone, which was not the case this time last year. And that is precisely why Fauci recommended against the casual use of masks in the early stages of this pandemic.

---

Your second paragraph proves my point.%A0 The purpose of Fauci downplaying the effectiveness of masks was not because he actually believed they were as ineffective as he suggested, but instead because he feared a supply problem.%A0 And that is the intentionally deceptive conduct DC and I reference above.%A0

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. %A0Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection. %A0

Weeks later he reversed course on masks and claimed they were needed for protection, and recommended govt. mask-wearing mandates to the public. %A0Either he lied or he was mistaken in his initial assessment. %A0The former appears much more likely.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

It's certainly what he suggested. %A0He 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. %A0

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

Fauci suggested the masks were not effective, and said they may catch the occasional drop of saliva. %A0How then is a mask ineffective to prevent oral transmission - as Fauci suggested - now effective to prevent airborne transmission? %A0Help 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 %A0addressed 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.

---

Has the science of mask effectiveness changed since Fauci made these statements? %A0

---

Yes it has. We've had numerous studies authorized that have confirmed that masks do, indeed, reduce the distance droplets travel and that widespread mask use does reduce the spread of the virus between people.

But a better question for the sake of this discussion is have the circumstances surrounding masks in the United States changed? And the answer to that, obviously, is yes. We now have masks readily available for everyone, which was not the case this time last year. And that is precisely why Fauci recommended against the casual use of masks in the early stages of this pandemic.

---

Your second paragraph proves my point.%A0 The purpose of Fauci downplaying the effectiveness of masks was not because he actually believed they were as ineffective as he suggested, but instead because he feared a supply problem.%A0 And that is the intentionally deceptive conduct DC and I reference above.%A0

---

Or ... he a) knows masks are relatively ineffective as a preventive measure, b) understands that those hoarding them would be doing so to use them for that purpose and c) is speaking directly to those who would be inclined to buy up masks that will only have marginal effect in protecting them from the virus.

But Fauci's tune changed when a) the supply of masks was such that medical professionals were no longer being left without life-saving gear and b) the focus shifted from stopping the contraction of COVID-19 to slowing the spread of COVID-19. It is here where masks have efficacy, but they require widespread buy-in and use.

Would we have been better off if Fauci had not said anything about masks at the beginning? Probably. But when put into the proper context, it makes perfect sense why he said the things he did. Unfortunately, too many got hung up on those words and stopped listening at that point. And it also didn't help that we had a president at the time that undermined his own task force.

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

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.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

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.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

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.

---

He has a range of numbers for herd immunity. It's impossible to know exactly because we don't know exactly how transmissible covid is compared to other diseases.

---

He specifically said that he increased the number he was saying publicly because he saw survey data showing that more people were willing to take the vaccine. (Not because new data in the disease somehow showed a higher number). We shouldn't need to make excuses for him.

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

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.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

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.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

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.

---

Context is important, and it is important to be honest in these contexts instead of trying to manipulate public behavior by telling less than the whole story. When he framed masks in terms of their ineffectiveness instead of their effectiveness in an attempt to preserve them for medical professionals, that had the effect of making a lot of people doubt later calls to wear masks. When he moved the goal posts around on herd immunity based on unrelated survey data, that was just damaging to his credibility.

If masks are ineffective as a preventive measure - whether preventing us from catching COVID or spreading it - then why are we wearing them? There is no logic in that position. And again, why downplay their effectiveness if the true reason you sought to limit their use was to help a supply problem?

As D.C. pointed out, these explanations cause a big credibility problem for Fauci. I would prefer honesty with the American people.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

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.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

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.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

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.

---

Aerosols stay in the air a lot longer than droplets. It isn't that masks don't protect against droplets. It's just that Fauci didn't think the benefit was worth the cost at that time.

---

If masks don't work on aerosols, why did Fauci go from suggesting masks are ineffective to supporting mask mandates after we learned the virus is transmissible by air?

---

They do work on aerosols.

---

Do you think that Fauci was unaware of this at the time he made his comments?

---

We didn't know it was airborne then.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

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.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

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.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

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.

---

He has a range of numbers for herd immunity. It's impossible to know exactly because we don't know exactly how transmissible covid is compared to other diseases.

---

He specifically said that he increased the number he was saying publicly because he saw survey data showing that more people were willing to take the vaccine. (Not because new data in the disease somehow showed a higher number). We shouldn't need to make excuses for him.

---

It was always a range. If he'd said it was definitely 85% and it turned out to be 75%, plenty of people would be ready to crucify him for that too.

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

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.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

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.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

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.

---

He has a range of numbers for herd immunity. It's impossible to know exactly because we don't know exactly how transmissible covid is compared to other diseases.

---

He specifically said that he increased the number he was saying publicly because he saw survey data showing that more people were willing to take the vaccine. (Not because new data in the disease somehow showed a higher number). We shouldn't need to make excuses for him.

---

It was always a range. If he'd said it was definitely 85% and it turned out to be 75%, plenty of people would be ready to crucify him for that too.

---

There you go again, making excuses for him. This isn't about it being a range, it is about him changing what he says publicly because of unrelated survey data. Now, whenever he says something, reasonable people will have to ask whether he is saying what he thinks is the best information he has as a professional doctor or saying what he thinks will have the effect he wants as an amateur politician.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. %A0Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection. %A0

Weeks later he reversed course on masks and claimed they were needed for protection, and recommended govt. mask-wearing mandates to the public. %A0Either he lied or he was mistaken in his initial assessment. %A0The former appears much more likely.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

It's certainly what he suggested. %A0He 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. %A0

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

Fauci suggested the masks were not effective, and said they may catch the occasional drop of saliva. %A0How then is a mask ineffective to prevent oral transmission - as Fauci suggested - now effective to prevent airborne transmission? %A0Help 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.

---

He has a range of numbers for herd immunity. It's impossible to know exactly because we don't know exactly how transmissible covid is compared to other diseases.

---

He specifically said that he increased the number he was saying publicly because he saw survey data showing that more people were willing to take the vaccine. (Not because new data in the disease somehow showed a higher number). We shouldn't need to make excuses for him.

---

It was always a range. If he'd said it was definitely 85% and it turned out to be 75%, plenty of people would be ready to crucify him for that too.

---

There you go again, making excuses for him. This isn't about it being a range, it is about him changing what he says publicly because of unrelated survey data. Now, whenever he says something, reasonable people will have to ask whether he is saying what he thinks is the best information he has as a professional doctor or saying what he thinks will have the effect he wants as an amateur politician.

---

Of course that's what it's about.%A0 Sam's not stupid.%A0 He's being purposely obtuse as it allows him to dodge your point.%A0 Fauci's statements you reference are indefensible.

So it's not very effective regarding oral transmission but it is regarding airborne transmission?

Mothra said:

---

If masks are ineffective as a preventive measure - whether preventing us from catching COVID or spreading it - then why are we wearing them? There is no logic in that position. And again, why downplay their effectiveness if the true reason you sought to limit their use was to help a supply problem?

As D.C. pointed out, these explanations cause a big credibility problem for Fauci. I would prefer honesty with the American people.

---

Again, this has been covered so many times, including a half-dozen or more times in this thread. Masks are relatively ineffective at protecting you from catching the virus, though there is data to suggest wearers are less likely to have a severe, life-threatening case than non-wearers -- likely due to the viral load each is exposed to.

Masks are effective at keeping you from spreading the virus to others, and when worn at high enough percentages are very effective at slowing community spread. Unfortunately, we never came close as a society to reaching that percentage because we continue to debate the same largely settled science on their effectiveness.

All of this was explained by health officials when the recommendations on masks changed 10 or 11 months ago and has been hammered and hammered since. Unfortunately, some people will not be convinced.

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If masks are ineffective as a preventive measure - whether preventing us from catching COVID or spreading it - then why are we wearing them? There is no logic in that position. And again, why downplay their effectiveness if the true reason you sought to limit their use was to help a supply problem?

As D.C. pointed out, these explanations cause a big credibility problem for Fauci. I would prefer honesty with the American people.

---

All of this was explained by health officials when the recommendations on masks changed 10 or 11 months ago and has been hammered and hammered since. Unfortunately, some people will not be convinced.

---

You mean the recommendations changed after Fauci discovered that there were enough masks for everyone?

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

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.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

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.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

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.

---

He has a range of numbers for herd immunity. It's impossible to know exactly because we don't know exactly how transmissible covid is compared to other diseases.

---

He specifically said that he increased the number he was saying publicly because he saw survey data showing that more people were willing to take the vaccine. (Not because new data in the disease somehow showed a higher number). We shouldn't need to make excuses for him.

---

It was always a range. If he'd said it was definitely 85% and it turned out to be 75%, plenty of people would be ready to crucify him for that too.

---

Better to be criticized for being honest and mistaken than to monkey with numbers in an attempt to manipulate the public and then need people to make excuses for you left and right.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

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.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

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.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

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.

---

He has a range of numbers for herd immunity. It's impossible to know exactly because we don't know exactly how transmissible covid is compared to other diseases.

---

He specifically said that he increased the number he was saying publicly because he saw survey data showing that more people were willing to take the vaccine. (Not because new data in the disease somehow showed a higher number). We shouldn't need to make excuses for him.

---

It was always a range. If he'd said it was definitely 85% and it turned out to be 75%, plenty of people would be ready to crucify him for that too.

---

Better to be criticized for being honest and mistaken than to monkey with numbers in an attempt to manipulate the public and then need people to make excuses for you left and right.

---

No one manipulated the numbers. Fauci's original estimates were in line with other scientists' at the time. They've changed based on revisions of early data from China and Italy, more transmissible virus strains, and other new information.

Mothra said:

---

So it's not very effective regarding oral transmission but it is regarding airborne transmission?

---

No, that's incorrect.

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

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.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

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.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

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.

---

He has a range of numbers for herd immunity. It's impossible to know exactly because we don't know exactly how transmissible covid is compared to other diseases.

---

He specifically said that he increased the number he was saying publicly because he saw survey data showing that more people were willing to take the vaccine. (Not because new data in the disease somehow showed a higher number). We shouldn't need to make excuses for him.

---

It was always a range. If he'd said it was definitely 85% and it turned out to be 75%, plenty of people would be ready to crucify him for that too.

---

Better to be criticized for being honest and mistaken than to monkey with numbers in an attempt to manipulate the public and then need people to make excuses for you left and right.

---

No one manipulated the numbers. Fauci's original estimates were in line with other scientists' at the time. They've changed based on revisions of early data from China and Italy, more transmissible virus strains, and other new information.

---

He said he adjusted the numbers for herd immunity that he was giving publicly because of survey data showing a lower level of vaccine hesitancy, but you are saying that new research about the nature of the disease changed the numbers he was giving. Why are you calling him a liar?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

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.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

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.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

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.

---

He has a range of numbers for herd immunity. It's impossible to know exactly because we don't know exactly how transmissible covid is compared to other diseases.

---

He specifically said that he increased the number he was saying publicly because he saw survey data showing that more people were willing to take the vaccine. (Not because new data in the disease somehow showed a higher number). We shouldn't need to make excuses for him.

---

It was always a range. If he'd said it was definitely 85% and it turned out to be 75%, plenty of people would be ready to crucify him for that too.

---

Better to be criticized for being honest and mistaken than to monkey with numbers in an attempt to manipulate the public and then need people to make excuses for you left and right.

---

No one manipulated the numbers. Fauci's original estimates were in line with other scientists' at the time. They've changed based on revisions of early data from China and Italy, more transmissible virus strains, and other new information.

---

He said he adjusted the numbers for herd immunity that he was giving publicly because of survey data showing a lower level of vaccine hesitancy, but you are saying that new research about the nature of the disease changed the numbers he was giving. Why are you calling him a liar?

---

He told the NYT that he was adjusting his public statements based on new science as well as his perception of what the public was ready to hear.

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

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.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

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.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

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.

---

He has a range of numbers for herd immunity. It's impossible to know exactly because we don't know exactly how transmissible covid is compared to other diseases.

---

He specifically said that he increased the number he was saying publicly because he saw survey data showing that more people were willing to take the vaccine. (Not because new data in the disease somehow showed a higher number). We shouldn't need to make excuses for him.

---

It was always a range. If he'd said it was definitely 85% and it turned out to be 75%, plenty of people would be ready to crucify him for that too.

---

Better to be criticized for being honest and mistaken than to monkey with numbers in an attempt to manipulate the public and then need people to make excuses for you left and right.

---

No one manipulated the numbers. Fauci's original estimates were in line with other scientists' at the time. They've changed based on revisions of early data from China and Italy, more transmissible virus strains, and other new information.

---

He said he adjusted the numbers for herd immunity that he was giving publicly because of survey data showing a lower level of vaccine hesitancy, but you are saying that new research about the nature of the disease changed the numbers he was giving. Why are you calling him a liar?

---

He told the NYT that he was adjusting his public statements based on new science as well as his perception of what the public was ready to hear.

---

You may not have a problem with that. I do.

"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent," 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."

This op ed does a good job of expressing my basic position.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/vinay-prasad/90445

Cuomo is disgusting. He deserves everything he has coming to him. Big bully.

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

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.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

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.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

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.

---

He has a range of numbers for herd immunity. It's impossible to know exactly because we don't know exactly how transmissible covid is compared to other diseases.

---

He specifically said that he increased the number he was saying publicly because he saw survey data showing that more people were willing to take the vaccine. (Not because new data in the disease somehow showed a higher number). We shouldn't need to make excuses for him.

---

It was always a range. If he'd said it was definitely 85% and it turned out to be 75%, plenty of people would be ready to crucify him for that too.

---

Better to be criticized for being honest and mistaken than to monkey with numbers in an attempt to manipulate the public and then need people to make excuses for you left and right.

---

No one manipulated the numbers. Fauci's original estimates were in line with other scientists' at the time. They've changed based on revisions of early data from China and Italy, more transmissible virus strains, and other new information.

---

He said he adjusted the numbers for herd immunity that he was giving publicly because of survey data showing a lower level of vaccine hesitancy, but you are saying that new research about the nature of the disease changed the numbers he was giving. Why are you calling him a liar?

---

He told the NYT that he was adjusting his public statements based on new science as well as his perception of what the public was ready to hear.

---

It absolutely amazes me the Sam Lowry I've known for years has no issue with Fauci feeding the public information based on his perception of what it was ready to hear. Fear has a strange effect on people.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

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.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

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.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

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.

---

He has a range of numbers for herd immunity. It's impossible to know exactly because we don't know exactly how transmissible covid is compared to other diseases.

---

He specifically said that he increased the number he was saying publicly because he saw survey data showing that more people were willing to take the vaccine. (Not because new data in the disease somehow showed a higher number). We shouldn't need to make excuses for him.

---

It was always a range. If he'd said it was definitely 85% and it turned out to be 75%, plenty of people would be ready to crucify him for that too.

---

Better to be criticized for being honest and mistaken than to monkey with numbers in an attempt to manipulate the public and then need people to make excuses for you left and right.

---

No one manipulated the numbers. Fauci's original estimates were in line with other scientists' at the time. They've changed based on revisions of early data from China and Italy, more transmissible virus strains, and other new information.

---

He said he adjusted the numbers for herd immunity that he was giving publicly because of survey data showing a lower level of vaccine hesitancy, but you are saying that new research about the nature of the disease changed the numbers he was giving. Why are you calling him a liar?

---

He told the NYT that he was adjusting his public statements based on new science as well as his perception of what the public was ready to hear.

---

You may not have a problem with that. I do.

"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent," 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."

This op ed does a good job of expressing my basic position.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/vinay-prasad/90445

---

Yup. We have our head doctor on this disease not being honest with the American people and people are ok with that. Amazing.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

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.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

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.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

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.

---

He has a range of numbers for herd immunity. It's impossible to know exactly because we don't know exactly how transmissible covid is compared to other diseases.

---

He specifically said that he increased the number he was saying publicly because he saw survey data showing that more people were willing to take the vaccine. (Not because new data in the disease somehow showed a higher number). We shouldn't need to make excuses for him.

---

It was always a range. If he'd said it was definitely 85% and it turned out to be 75%, plenty of people would be ready to crucify him for that too.

---

Better to be criticized for being honest and mistaken than to monkey with numbers in an attempt to manipulate the public and then need people to make excuses for you left and right.

---

No one manipulated the numbers. Fauci's original estimates were in line with other scientists' at the time. They've changed based on revisions of early data from China and Italy, more transmissible virus strains, and other new information.

---

He said he adjusted the numbers for herd immunity that he was giving publicly because of survey data showing a lower level of vaccine hesitancy, but you are saying that new research about the nature of the disease changed the numbers he was giving. Why are you calling him a liar?

---

He told the NYT that he was adjusting his public statements based on new science as well as his perception of what the public was ready to hear.

---

It absolutely amazes me the Sam Lowry I've known for years has no issue with Fauci feeding the public information based on his perception of what it was ready to hear. Fear has a strange effect on people.

---

Actually I do have an issue with it. It's just that the issue was never properly raised until D.C Bear's last post. Everything else y'all have said has mischaracterized Fauci's position to some degree or another.

The Cruz story is good giggle. The Cuomo story will have longer legs.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

---

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

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.

---

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.

---

If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

He didn't say that. He did downplay them.

---

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.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

---

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.

---

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.

---

A little revisionist history here...

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.

---

He has a range of numbers for herd immunity. It's impossible to know exactly because we don't know exactly how transmissible covid is compared to other diseases.

---

He specifically said that he increased the number he was saying publicly because he saw survey data showing that more people were willing to take the vaccine. (Not because new data in the disease somehow showed a higher number). We shouldn't need to make excuses for him.

---

It was always a range. If he'd said it was definitely 85% and it turned out to be 75%, plenty of people would be ready to crucify him for that too.

---

Better to be criticized for being honest and mistaken than to monkey with numbers in an attempt to manipulate the public and then need people to make excuses for you left and right.

---

No one manipulated the numbers. Fauci's original estimates were in line with other scientists' at the time. They've changed based on revisions of early data from China and Italy, more transmissible virus strains, and other new information.

---

He said he adjusted the numbers for herd immunity that he was giving publicly because of survey data showing a lower level of vaccine hesitancy, but you are saying that new research about the nature of the disease changed the numbers he was giving. Why are you calling him a liar?

---

He told the NYT that he was adjusting his public statements based on new science as well as his perception of what the public was ready to hear.

---

It absolutely amazes me the Sam Lowry I've known for years has no issue with Fauci feeding the public information based on his perception of what it was ready to hear. Fear has a strange effect on people.

---

Actually I do have an issue with it. It's just that the issue was never properly raised until D.C Bear's last post. Everything else y'all have said has mischaracterized Fauci's position to some degree or another.

---

I "properly raised" it on the first page of this thread:
" When Dr. Fauci, for example, increased his estimated vaccination percentage required for herd immunity based not on medical information but on survey data showing a decline in vaccine hesitancy, that was not a good public message." My analysis then was based on a fair and accurate reflection of his own description of what he said and why he said it, and is no different from my analysis in my last post that you referenced above.

Is it really your position that Fauci was unaware of the efficacy of masks prior to his statements downplaying their effectiveness? Come on, Sam.

We can argue semantics if you like. If Fauci was aware that masks are more effective than he suggested but downplayed their effectiveness so as not to create a supply problem, I call that deceptive and dishonest. Perhaps you feel he was just telling the public "what it was ready to hear." Either way, it's likewise deceptive and dishonest, and any American should have a problem with it.