Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "It's not the same level of protection. When you wear a mask, you're not just keeping your droplets from contacting other people. You're also keeping the droplets from evaporating into smaller particles which could more easily avoid other people's masks. This is why an unmasked person in a roomful of masked people is probably safer than a masked person in a roomful of unmasked people. The more people are masked, the fewer particles are in the air."

What gets lost is the probability that someone is infected. If someone is not infected, there is 0% chance of transmission by definition. What got out of hand was the assumption that requiring everyone to mask up everywhere, all the time would somehow prevent the virus from spreading. The data indicates that assumption was false, and also that front-line essential workers, who should have caught the virus more often since they were exposed to the general public in order to do their jobs, did not show evidence that such exposure led to significantly more infection.

Ergo, we would have done better to use protocols and practices employed in past pandemics.

---

There was no way to know who was infected and who wasn't. Masking the general public was the only option.

---

Not true. We could have treated this the way we handled SARs or Legionnaires disease, for example. It was stupid on steroids to make panic official policy.

---

Nope.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/the-original-sars-virus-disappeared-heres-why-coronavirus-wont-do-the-same-138177

---

Yep.

Panic is generally a bad idea, both Trump and the Dems fell into it anyway

---

In any case, this was very different from SARS.

---

This virus was very different from Reality

---

Treating it like SARS would have been a colossal mistake, for reasons explained in the link.

---

Anyone claiming our actual response was anything like effective or responsible has not been paying attention.

I love how the party that believes a little boy can grow up to be a fine young woman loves to tell people to "follow the science" when it reality, all we need to do is follow the money

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

I think you miss Sam's point, Robert. %A0 Fauci is not wrong because Science is wrong, he is wrong because Fauci used his position to advance his own interests at the expense of credible medical leadership.

Fauci's flip-flop on masks, for instance, was egregious not because he changed his opinion as more information came in, but because Fauci admitted his reason for initially saying masks were not needed was on the assumption that advocating everyone wear masks would increase fear in the public and cause difficulty for medical workers to get enough masks. %A0 To say so demonstrated a callous disregard for both public safety and his responsibility to be straight with the public.

Fauci also worked to suppress opinions from front-line doctors who were actually treating COVID patients, again to advance his influence and the CDC rather than provide the best available information to the public as it became available. %A0

Fauci is a self-serving hypocrite, who at minimum played a role in creating the environment for the virus to escape containment by using NIH money for gain of function research in Wuhan while hiding that action from government leaders. %A0

---

I don't really disagree with any of that.

But Sam's point is just a pathetic attempt to act like if you disagree with Fauci you must be a knuckle-dragging cretin who doesn't agree with "science" in general.

---

I'd be impressed if someone could articulate a real disagreement. The obsession with this man appears to be such that all powers of reason and comprehension disappear in his wake.

---

LOL. %A0No, you would just find a way to spin his dishonest statements like you always do.

There is a direct quote above in which he admitted he considered polling data in determining what to tell the public about herd immunity. That should raise red flags with any reasonable person.

---

It did raise a red flag. That's why I went and found out what he actually said.

---

So his consideration of polling data (instead of science) in determining what to tell the public about herd immunity, and statements like "his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks" are of no concern then?

---

No, because that's not what he did. He considered the polling data after (not instead of) the science.

---

I am unclear. %A0Did he consider the polling data like he said he did or not?

And if he did consider polling, it's your position that the numbers were based on science and determined before he considered the polling data? %A0He just decided to tell us what the science told him after he saw the polling data?

Seriously?

Edit: please provide a link supporting your position - if that is your position.

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.amp.html

---

Behind a pay wall.%A0 Too difficult to actually quote the language that you believe supports your position?

---

It is somewhat difficult on a phone. The gist is what I described to DC. It's not as if Fauci saw more acceptance of vaccines and thought, "Oh goody, now's my chance to make up some new numbers." He saw where the research was trending, if anything the polls made him slower to revisit the issue, but when he did his statements were scientifically based.

---

That's not what the man said. He said that he adjusted public statements about the question of what he believed would be required for herd immunity based on polling data. That's irresponsible.

---

Wrong.

---

Are you calling him a liar (he definitely said that he adjusted what he was saying publicly because of polling data) or do you believe it is not irresponsible to adjust public statements based on unrelated polling data?

---

He made scientifically based statements, the timing of which was influenced by the polls.

---

He made statements based on his reading of polls in an effort to manipulate public behavior. You might appreciate the noble lie. I don't.

---

I've yet to see the lie pointed out. I think we can agree that he undermined his trust by mentioning the polls. What's curious is that you seem intent on undermining it further by selectively quoting and distorting his statements. I'd expect that from a hard core anti-vaxxer, but in your case it's a bit perplexing.

Bottom line is that he changed his mind and picked an opportune time to say so. None of this has anything to do with the substance of his message, which is accurate. We need more people vaccinated.

---

I posted what he said. It is not distorted. It is his quote and it is not chopped up or misrepresented. It is also not out of character for him to say things of that nature.

He didn't undermine his trust by mentioning the polls. He undermined his trust by using them to help him decide what to say about something that was totally unrelated to those polls.

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:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

I think you miss Sam's point, Robert. %A0 Fauci is not wrong because Science is wrong, he is wrong because Fauci used his position to advance his own interests at the expense of credible medical leadership.

Fauci's flip-flop on masks, for instance, was egregious not because he changed his opinion as more information came in, but because Fauci admitted his reason for initially saying masks were not needed was on the assumption that advocating everyone wear masks would increase fear in the public and cause difficulty for medical workers to get enough masks. %A0 To say so demonstrated a callous disregard for both public safety and his responsibility to be straight with the public.

Fauci also worked to suppress opinions from front-line doctors who were actually treating COVID patients, again to advance his influence and the CDC rather than provide the best available information to the public as it became available. %A0

Fauci is a self-serving hypocrite, who at minimum played a role in creating the environment for the virus to escape containment by using NIH money for gain of function research in Wuhan while hiding that action from government leaders. %A0

---

I don't really disagree with any of that.

But Sam's point is just a pathetic attempt to act like if you disagree with Fauci you must be a knuckle-dragging cretin who doesn't agree with "science" in general.

---

I'd be impressed if someone could articulate a real disagreement. The obsession with this man appears to be such that all powers of reason and comprehension disappear in his wake.

---

LOL. %A0No, you would just find a way to spin his dishonest statements like you always do.

There is a direct quote above in which he admitted he considered polling data in determining what to tell the public about herd immunity. That should raise red flags with any reasonable person.

---

It did raise a red flag. That's why I went and found out what he actually said.

---

So his consideration of polling data (instead of science) in determining what to tell the public about herd immunity, and statements like "his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks" are of no concern then?

---

No, because that's not what he did. He considered the polling data after (not instead of) the science.

---

I am unclear. %A0Did he consider the polling data like he said he did or not?

And if he did consider polling, it's your position that the numbers were based on science and determined before he considered the polling data? %A0He just decided to tell us what the science told him after he saw the polling data?

Seriously?

Edit: please provide a link supporting your position - if that is your position.

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.amp.html

---

Behind a pay wall.%A0 Too difficult to actually quote the language that you believe supports your position?

---

It is somewhat difficult on a phone. The gist is what I described to DC. It's not as if Fauci saw more acceptance of vaccines and thought, "Oh goody, now's my chance to make up some new numbers." He saw where the research was trending, if anything the polls made him slower to revisit the issue, but when he did his statements were scientifically based.

---

That's not what the man said. He said that he adjusted public statements about the question of what he believed would be required for herd immunity based on polling data. That's irresponsible.

---

Wrong.

---

Are you calling him a liar (he definitely said that he adjusted what he was saying publicly because of polling data) or do you believe it is not irresponsible to adjust public statements based on unrelated polling data?

---

He made scientifically based statements, the timing of which was influenced by the polls.

---

He made statements based on his reading of polls in an effort to manipulate public behavior. You might appreciate the noble lie. I don't.

---

I've yet to see the lie pointed out. I think we can agree that he undermined his trust by mentioning the polls. What's curious is that you seem intent on undermining it further by selectively quoting and distorting his statements. I'd expect that from a hard core anti-vaxxer, but in your case it's a bit perplexing.

Bottom line is that he changed his mind and picked an opportune time to say so. None of this has anything to do with the substance of his message, which is accurate. We need more people vaccinated.

---

I posted what he said. It is not distorted. It is his quote and it is not chopped up or misrepresented.

---

You misrepresent it when you deny the relevant context. He did in fact say the science had changed but he hesitated to announce it because of the polls.

BaylorOkie said:

---

So true. pic.twitter.com/LzDk5gjJ0g

— CHIZ 🇺🇸 (@CHIZMAGA) June 3, 2021

---

Fauci loves him some Pooh Bear.

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:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

I think you miss Sam's point, Robert. %A0 Fauci is not wrong because Science is wrong, he is wrong because Fauci used his position to advance his own interests at the expense of credible medical leadership.

Fauci's flip-flop on masks, for instance, was egregious not because he changed his opinion as more information came in, but because Fauci admitted his reason for initially saying masks were not needed was on the assumption that advocating everyone wear masks would increase fear in the public and cause difficulty for medical workers to get enough masks. %A0 To say so demonstrated a callous disregard for both public safety and his responsibility to be straight with the public.

Fauci also worked to suppress opinions from front-line doctors who were actually treating COVID patients, again to advance his influence and the CDC rather than provide the best available information to the public as it became available. %A0

Fauci is a self-serving hypocrite, who at minimum played a role in creating the environment for the virus to escape containment by using NIH money for gain of function research in Wuhan while hiding that action from government leaders. %A0

---

I don't really disagree with any of that.

But Sam's point is just a pathetic attempt to act like if you disagree with Fauci you must be a knuckle-dragging cretin who doesn't agree with "science" in general.

---

I'd be impressed if someone could articulate a real disagreement. The obsession with this man appears to be such that all powers of reason and comprehension disappear in his wake.

---

LOL. %A0No, you would just find a way to spin his dishonest statements like you always do.

There is a direct quote above in which he admitted he considered polling data in determining what to tell the public about herd immunity. That should raise red flags with any reasonable person.

---

It did raise a red flag. That's why I went and found out what he actually said.

---

So his consideration of polling data (instead of science) in determining what to tell the public about herd immunity, and statements like "his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks" are of no concern then?

---

No, because that's not what he did. He considered the polling data after (not instead of) the science.

---

I am unclear. %A0Did he consider the polling data like he said he did or not?

And if he did consider polling, it's your position that the numbers were based on science and determined before he considered the polling data? %A0He just decided to tell us what the science told him after he saw the polling data?

Seriously?

Edit: please provide a link supporting your position - if that is your position.

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.amp.html

---

Behind a pay wall.%A0 Too difficult to actually quote the language that you believe supports your position?

---

It is somewhat difficult on a phone. The gist is what I described to DC. It's not as if Fauci saw more acceptance of vaccines and thought, "Oh goody, now's my chance to make up some new numbers." He saw where the research was trending, if anything the polls made him slower to revisit the issue, but when he did his statements were scientifically based.

---

That's not what the man said. He said that he adjusted public statements about the question of what he believed would be required for herd immunity based on polling data. That's irresponsible.

---

Wrong.

---

Are you calling him a liar (he definitely said that he adjusted what he was saying publicly because of polling data) or do you believe it is not irresponsible to adjust public statements based on unrelated polling data?

---

He made scientifically based statements, the timing of which was influenced by the polls.

---

He made statements based on his reading of polls in an effort to manipulate public behavior. You might appreciate the noble lie. I don't.

---

I've yet to see the lie pointed out. I think we can agree that he undermined his trust by mentioning the polls. What's curious is that you seem intent on undermining it further by selectively quoting and distorting his statements. I'd expect that from a hard core anti-vaxxer, but in your case it's a bit perplexing.

Bottom line is that he changed his mind and picked an opportune time to say so. None of this has anything to do with the substance of his message, which is accurate. We need more people vaccinated.

---

I posted what he said. It is not distorted. It is his quote and it is not chopped up or misrepresented.

---

You misrepresent it when you deny the relevant context. He did in fact say the science had changed but he hesitated to announce it because of the polls.

---

The behavior you describe and which I have bolded above in your post is irresponsible.

Sam Lowry said:

---

You misrepresent it when you deny the relevant context. He did in fact say the science had changed but he hesitated to announce it because of the polls.

---

"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."

The "nudging up" wasn't based on science. According to his own admissions, it was based on polls.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You misrepresent it when you deny the relevant context. He did in fact say the science had changed but he hesitated to announce it because of the polls.

---

"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."

The "nudging up" wasn't based on science. According to his own admissions, it was based on polls.

---

Incorrect.

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:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

I think you miss Sam's point, Robert. %A0 Fauci is not wrong because Science is wrong, he is wrong because Fauci used his position to advance his own interests at the expense of credible medical leadership.

Fauci's flip-flop on masks, for instance, was egregious not because he changed his opinion as more information came in, but because Fauci admitted his reason for initially saying masks were not needed was on the assumption that advocating everyone wear masks would increase fear in the public and cause difficulty for medical workers to get enough masks. %A0 To say so demonstrated a callous disregard for both public safety and his responsibility to be straight with the public.

Fauci also worked to suppress opinions from front-line doctors who were actually treating COVID patients, again to advance his influence and the CDC rather than provide the best available information to the public as it became available. %A0

Fauci is a self-serving hypocrite, who at minimum played a role in creating the environment for the virus to escape containment by using NIH money for gain of function research in Wuhan while hiding that action from government leaders. %A0

---

I don't really disagree with any of that.

But Sam's point is just a pathetic attempt to act like if you disagree with Fauci you must be a knuckle-dragging cretin who doesn't agree with "science" in general.

---

I'd be impressed if someone could articulate a real disagreement. The obsession with this man appears to be such that all powers of reason and comprehension disappear in his wake.

---

LOL. %A0No, you would just find a way to spin his dishonest statements like you always do.

There is a direct quote above in which he admitted he considered polling data in determining what to tell the public about herd immunity. That should raise red flags with any reasonable person.

---

It did raise a red flag. That's why I went and found out what he actually said.

---

So his consideration of polling data (instead of science) in determining what to tell the public about herd immunity, and statements like "his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks" are of no concern then?

---

No, because that's not what he did. He considered the polling data after (not instead of) the science.

---

I am unclear. %A0Did he consider the polling data like he said he did or not?

And if he did consider polling, it's your position that the numbers were based on science and determined before he considered the polling data? %A0He just decided to tell us what the science told him after he saw the polling data?

Seriously?

Edit: please provide a link supporting your position - if that is your position.

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.amp.html

---

Behind a pay wall.%A0 Too difficult to actually quote the language that you believe supports your position?

---

It is somewhat difficult on a phone. The gist is what I described to DC. It's not as if Fauci saw more acceptance of vaccines and thought, "Oh goody, now's my chance to make up some new numbers." He saw where the research was trending, if anything the polls made him slower to revisit the issue, but when he did his statements were scientifically based.

---

That's not what the man said. He said that he adjusted public statements about the question of what he believed would be required for herd immunity based on polling data. That's irresponsible.

---

Wrong.

---

Are you calling him a liar (he definitely said that he adjusted what he was saying publicly because of polling data) or do you believe it is not irresponsible to adjust public statements based on unrelated polling data?

---

He made scientifically based statements, the timing of which was influenced by the polls.

---

He made statements based on his reading of polls in an effort to manipulate public behavior. You might appreciate the noble lie. I don't.

---

I've yet to see the lie pointed out. I think we can agree that he undermined his trust by mentioning the polls. What's curious is that you seem intent on undermining it further by selectively quoting and distorting his statements. I'd expect that from a hard core anti-vaxxer, but in your case it's a bit perplexing.

Bottom line is that he changed his mind and picked an opportune time to say so. None of this has anything to do with the substance of his message, which is accurate. We need more people vaccinated.

---

I posted what he said. It is not distorted. It is his quote and it is not chopped up or misrepresented.

---

You misrepresent it when you deny the relevant context. He did in fact say the science had changed but he hesitated to announce it because of the polls.

---

The behavior you describe and which I have bolded above in your post is irresponsible.

---

Why, was there an emergency?

NM. Put in other thread.

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:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

I think you miss Sam's point, Robert. %A0 Fauci is not wrong because Science is wrong, he is wrong because Fauci used his position to advance his own interests at the expense of credible medical leadership.

Fauci's flip-flop on masks, for instance, was egregious not because he changed his opinion as more information came in, but because Fauci admitted his reason for initially saying masks were not needed was on the assumption that advocating everyone wear masks would increase fear in the public and cause difficulty for medical workers to get enough masks. %A0 To say so demonstrated a callous disregard for both public safety and his responsibility to be straight with the public.

Fauci also worked to suppress opinions from front-line doctors who were actually treating COVID patients, again to advance his influence and the CDC rather than provide the best available information to the public as it became available. %A0

Fauci is a self-serving hypocrite, who at minimum played a role in creating the environment for the virus to escape containment by using NIH money for gain of function research in Wuhan while hiding that action from government leaders. %A0

---

I don't really disagree with any of that.

But Sam's point is just a pathetic attempt to act like if you disagree with Fauci you must be a knuckle-dragging cretin who doesn't agree with "science" in general.

---

I'd be impressed if someone could articulate a real disagreement. The obsession with this man appears to be such that all powers of reason and comprehension disappear in his wake.

---

LOL. %A0No, you would just find a way to spin his dishonest statements like you always do.

There is a direct quote above in which he admitted he considered polling data in determining what to tell the public about herd immunity. That should raise red flags with any reasonable person.

---

It did raise a red flag. That's why I went and found out what he actually said.

---

So his consideration of polling data (instead of science) in determining what to tell the public about herd immunity, and statements like "his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks" are of no concern then?

---

No, because that's not what he did. He considered the polling data after (not instead of) the science.

---

I am unclear. %A0Did he consider the polling data like he said he did or not?

And if he did consider polling, it's your position that the numbers were based on science and determined before he considered the polling data? %A0He just decided to tell us what the science told him after he saw the polling data?

Seriously?

Edit: please provide a link supporting your position - if that is your position.

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.amp.html

---

Behind a pay wall.%A0 Too difficult to actually quote the language that you believe supports your position?

---

It is somewhat difficult on a phone. The gist is what I described to DC. It's not as if Fauci saw more acceptance of vaccines and thought, "Oh goody, now's my chance to make up some new numbers." He saw where the research was trending, if anything the polls made him slower to revisit the issue, but when he did his statements were scientifically based.

---

That's not what the man said. He said that he adjusted public statements about the question of what he believed would be required for herd immunity based on polling data. That's irresponsible.

---

Wrong.

---

Are you calling him a liar (he definitely said that he adjusted what he was saying publicly because of polling data) or do you believe it is not irresponsible to adjust public statements based on unrelated polling data?

---

He made scientifically based statements, the timing of which was influenced by the polls.

---

He made statements based on his reading of polls in an effort to manipulate public behavior. You might appreciate the noble lie. I don't.

---

I've yet to see the lie pointed out. I think we can agree that he undermined his trust by mentioning the polls. What's curious is that you seem intent on undermining it further by selectively quoting and distorting his statements. I'd expect that from a hard core anti-vaxxer, but in your case it's a bit perplexing.

Bottom line is that he changed his mind and picked an opportune time to say so. None of this has anything to do with the substance of his message, which is accurate. We need more people vaccinated.

---

I posted what he said. It is not distorted. It is his quote and it is not chopped up or misrepresented.

---

You misrepresent it when you deny the relevant context. He did in fact say the science had changed but he hesitated to announce it because of the polls.

---

The behavior you describe and which I have bolded above in your post is irresponsible.

---

Why, was there an emergency?

---

We have been in an ongoing emergency for the better part of a year and a half, but what you describe would be irresponsible whether or not there was an emergency.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You misrepresent it when you deny the relevant context. He did in fact say the science had changed but he hesitated to announce it because of the polls.

---

"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."

The "nudging up" wasn't based on science. According to his own admissions, it was based on polls.

---

Incorrect.

---

Feel free to post the direct quote wherein he says he nudged it up because of science instead of polls, as I asked yesterday, but you were unable to provide.

Until then, the plain language of his words speak for themselves.

Sam Lowry said:

---

You misrepresent it when you deny the relevant context. He did in fact say the science had changed but he hesitated to announce it because of the polls.

---

Again I ask, quote?

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:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

I think you miss Sam's point, Robert. %A0 Fauci is not wrong because Science is wrong, he is wrong because Fauci used his position to advance his own interests at the expense of credible medical leadership.

Fauci's flip-flop on masks, for instance, was egregious not because he changed his opinion as more information came in, but because Fauci admitted his reason for initially saying masks were not needed was on the assumption that advocating everyone wear masks would increase fear in the public and cause difficulty for medical workers to get enough masks. %A0 To say so demonstrated a callous disregard for both public safety and his responsibility to be straight with the public.

Fauci also worked to suppress opinions from front-line doctors who were actually treating COVID patients, again to advance his influence and the CDC rather than provide the best available information to the public as it became available. %A0

Fauci is a self-serving hypocrite, who at minimum played a role in creating the environment for the virus to escape containment by using NIH money for gain of function research in Wuhan while hiding that action from government leaders. %A0

---

I don't really disagree with any of that.

But Sam's point is just a pathetic attempt to act like if you disagree with Fauci you must be a knuckle-dragging cretin who doesn't agree with "science" in general.

---

I'd be impressed if someone could articulate a real disagreement. The obsession with this man appears to be such that all powers of reason and comprehension disappear in his wake.

---

LOL. %A0No, you would just find a way to spin his dishonest statements like you always do.

There is a direct quote above in which he admitted he considered polling data in determining what to tell the public about herd immunity. That should raise red flags with any reasonable person.

---

It did raise a red flag. That's why I went and found out what he actually said.

---

So his consideration of polling data (instead of science) in determining what to tell the public about herd immunity, and statements like "his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks" are of no concern then?

---

No, because that's not what he did. He considered the polling data after (not instead of) the science.

---

I am unclear. %A0Did he consider the polling data like he said he did or not?

And if he did consider polling, it's your position that the numbers were based on science and determined before he considered the polling data? %A0He just decided to tell us what the science told him after he saw the polling data?

Seriously?

Edit: please provide a link supporting your position - if that is your position.

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.amp.html

---

Behind a pay wall.%A0 Too difficult to actually quote the language that you believe supports your position?

---

It is somewhat difficult on a phone. The gist is what I described to DC. It's not as if Fauci saw more acceptance of vaccines and thought, "Oh goody, now's my chance to make up some new numbers." He saw where the research was trending, if anything the polls made him slower to revisit the issue, but when he did his statements were scientifically based.

---

That's not what the man said. He said that he adjusted public statements about the question of what he believed would be required for herd immunity based on polling data. That's irresponsible.

---

Wrong.

---

Are you calling him a liar (he definitely said that he adjusted what he was saying publicly because of polling data) or do you believe it is not irresponsible to adjust public statements based on unrelated polling data?

---

He made scientifically based statements, the timing of which was influenced by the polls.

---

He made statements based on his reading of polls in an effort to manipulate public behavior. You might appreciate the noble lie. I don't.

---

I've yet to see the lie pointed out. I think we can agree that he undermined his trust by mentioning the polls. What's curious is that you seem intent on undermining it further by selectively quoting and distorting his statements. I'd expect that from a hard core anti-vaxxer, but in your case it's a bit perplexing.

Bottom line is that he changed his mind and picked an opportune time to say so. None of this has anything to do with the substance of his message, which is accurate. We need more people vaccinated.

---

I posted what he said. It is not distorted. It is his quote and it is not chopped up or misrepresented.

---

You misrepresent it when you deny the relevant context. He did in fact say the science had changed but he hesitated to announce it because of the polls.

---

The behavior you describe and which I have bolded above in your post is irresponsible.

---

Why, was there an emergency?

---

We have been in an ongoing emergency for the better part of a year and a half, but what you describe would be irresponsible whether or not there was an emergency.

---

Why? Was there a three-week window during which everyone must be vaccinated or forever lose their chance? Was ten percent of the population checking the news every day, waiting to change its mind based on Fauci's herd immunity estimate? What were the consequences of this madcap behavior on his part?

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:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

I think you miss Sam's point, Robert. %A0 Fauci is not wrong because Science is wrong, he is wrong because Fauci used his position to advance his own interests at the expense of credible medical leadership.

Fauci's flip-flop on masks, for instance, was egregious not because he changed his opinion as more information came in, but because Fauci admitted his reason for initially saying masks were not needed was on the assumption that advocating everyone wear masks would increase fear in the public and cause difficulty for medical workers to get enough masks. %A0 To say so demonstrated a callous disregard for both public safety and his responsibility to be straight with the public.

Fauci also worked to suppress opinions from front-line doctors who were actually treating COVID patients, again to advance his influence and the CDC rather than provide the best available information to the public as it became available. %A0

Fauci is a self-serving hypocrite, who at minimum played a role in creating the environment for the virus to escape containment by using NIH money for gain of function research in Wuhan while hiding that action from government leaders. %A0

---

I don't really disagree with any of that.

But Sam's point is just a pathetic attempt to act like if you disagree with Fauci you must be a knuckle-dragging cretin who doesn't agree with "science" in general.

---

I'd be impressed if someone could articulate a real disagreement. The obsession with this man appears to be such that all powers of reason and comprehension disappear in his wake.

---

LOL. %A0No, you would just find a way to spin his dishonest statements like you always do.

There is a direct quote above in which he admitted he considered polling data in determining what to tell the public about herd immunity. That should raise red flags with any reasonable person.

---

It did raise a red flag. That's why I went and found out what he actually said.

---

So his consideration of polling data (instead of science) in determining what to tell the public about herd immunity, and statements like "his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks" are of no concern then?

---

No, because that's not what he did. He considered the polling data after (not instead of) the science.

---

I am unclear. %A0Did he consider the polling data like he said he did or not?

And if he did consider polling, it's your position that the numbers were based on science and determined before he considered the polling data? %A0He just decided to tell us what the science told him after he saw the polling data?

Seriously?

Edit: please provide a link supporting your position - if that is your position.

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.amp.html

---

Behind a pay wall.%A0 Too difficult to actually quote the language that you believe supports your position?

---

It is somewhat difficult on a phone. The gist is what I described to DC. It's not as if Fauci saw more acceptance of vaccines and thought, "Oh goody, now's my chance to make up some new numbers." He saw where the research was trending, if anything the polls made him slower to revisit the issue, but when he did his statements were scientifically based.

---

That's not what the man said. He said that he adjusted public statements about the question of what he believed would be required for herd immunity based on polling data. That's irresponsible.

---

Wrong.

---

Are you calling him a liar (he definitely said that he adjusted what he was saying publicly because of polling data) or do you believe it is not irresponsible to adjust public statements based on unrelated polling data?

---

He made scientifically based statements, the timing of which was influenced by the polls.

---

He made statements based on his reading of polls in an effort to manipulate public behavior. You might appreciate the noble lie. I don't.

---

I've yet to see the lie pointed out. I think we can agree that he undermined his trust by mentioning the polls. What's curious is that you seem intent on undermining it further by selectively quoting and distorting his statements. I'd expect that from a hard core anti-vaxxer, but in your case it's a bit perplexing.

Bottom line is that he changed his mind and picked an opportune time to say so. None of this has anything to do with the substance of his message, which is accurate. We need more people vaccinated.

---

I posted what he said. It is not distorted. It is his quote and it is not chopped up or misrepresented.

---

You misrepresent it when you deny the relevant context. He did in fact say the science had changed but he hesitated to announce it because of the polls.

---

The behavior you describe and which I have bolded above in your post is irresponsible.

---

Why, was there an emergency?

---

We have been in an ongoing emergency for the better part of a year and a half, but what you describe would be irresponsible whether or not there was an emergency.

---

Why? Was there a three-week window during which everyone must be vaccinated or forever lose their chance? Was ten percent of the population checking the news every day, waiting to change its mind based on Fauci's herd immunity estimate? What were the consequences of this madcap behavior on his part?

---

The consequences are that, along with some of his other statements, he seriously damaged his own credibility and, with it, the credibility of the societal institution he represents. Now, when he makes public statements, those who are familiar with him will not be particularly inclined to believe him or follow his advice. I know that I can no longer take what he says at face value given his record of saying he was publicly telling something other than the whole truth as he believes it to be so that he could manipulate public behavior. It was irresponsible of him to use that strategy.

For some, there was a three-week window because they caught it and died in the meantime. Were people influenced by what he said about herd immunity? He certainly believed they would be influenced by what he said about it, which was why he decided to tell less than the whole truth about his best scientific judgment.

Yup, and he's been caught more than once telling the public something different from the truth or whole truth, whether about masks or herd immunity.

At the end of the day, I think what is even more damaging was his downplaying of therapeutics that have been proven to help people with COVID. Like his public flogging of the lab-origin theory back in April, he is directly responsible for turning that into something the media and medical providers concluded was a crackpot conspiracy theory based on his comments. Hospitals across the country refused to let their physicians prescribe those therapeutics as a direct result. My ENT advised me that his hospital threatened doctors with firing if they prescribed Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID patients, despite the fact that such drugs showed positive results and have fewer side effects than most over-the-counter drugs. Who knows how many people have died as a result.

And then of course it will be interesting to learn what actually happened with the lab-origin theory, and if he had any role in quashing same.

Mothra said:

---

Vanity Fair published an article today that is the most compelling yet that the virus was the result of a lab-leak, and has ample evidence that bureaucrats within the CDC and govt. health organizations attempted to cover up the theory because of fear that the public would find out that our tax dollars went to funding gain of function research at the lab in question, which contrary to Sam's assertions, was well-known to be very lax in safety protocols for years. Those researching the lab-origin theory were told not to open Pandora's Box by the higher ups. It's pretty damning, and of course leads to even more questions of what Fauci's little meeting with his underlings the day after they suggested the virus had man-made characteristics was about.

When you have a traditionally liberal magazine suggesting the lab leak theory and a govt. cover-up, you should take note. It is well-worth the read.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins

---

From the first, Fauci made sure he was at the very center of everything, both the public face and the private heart of the US pandemic response. I assumed that was because he liked the limelight and wanted to be in charge. But the emails suggest he had another motive too.

— Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) June 3, 2021

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:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

I think you miss Sam's point, Robert. %A0 Fauci is not wrong because Science is wrong, he is wrong because Fauci used his position to advance his own interests at the expense of credible medical leadership.

Fauci's flip-flop on masks, for instance, was egregious not because he changed his opinion as more information came in, but because Fauci admitted his reason for initially saying masks were not needed was on the assumption that advocating everyone wear masks would increase fear in the public and cause difficulty for medical workers to get enough masks. %A0 To say so demonstrated a callous disregard for both public safety and his responsibility to be straight with the public.

Fauci also worked to suppress opinions from front-line doctors who were actually treating COVID patients, again to advance his influence and the CDC rather than provide the best available information to the public as it became available. %A0

Fauci is a self-serving hypocrite, who at minimum played a role in creating the environment for the virus to escape containment by using NIH money for gain of function research in Wuhan while hiding that action from government leaders. %A0

---

I don't really disagree with any of that.

But Sam's point is just a pathetic attempt to act like if you disagree with Fauci you must be a knuckle-dragging cretin who doesn't agree with "science" in general.

---

I'd be impressed if someone could articulate a real disagreement. The obsession with this man appears to be such that all powers of reason and comprehension disappear in his wake.

---

LOL. %A0No, you would just find a way to spin his dishonest statements like you always do.

There is a direct quote above in which he admitted he considered polling data in determining what to tell the public about herd immunity. That should raise red flags with any reasonable person.

---

It did raise a red flag. That's why I went and found out what he actually said.

---

So his consideration of polling data (instead of science) in determining what to tell the public about herd immunity, and statements like "his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks" are of no concern then?

---

No, because that's not what he did. He considered the polling data after (not instead of) the science.

---

I am unclear. %A0Did he consider the polling data like he said he did or not?

And if he did consider polling, it's your position that the numbers were based on science and determined before he considered the polling data? %A0He just decided to tell us what the science told him after he saw the polling data?

Seriously?

Edit: please provide a link supporting your position - if that is your position.

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.amp.html

---

Behind a pay wall.%A0 Too difficult to actually quote the language that you believe supports your position?

---

It is somewhat difficult on a phone. The gist is what I described to DC. It's not as if Fauci saw more acceptance of vaccines and thought, "Oh goody, now's my chance to make up some new numbers." He saw where the research was trending, if anything the polls made him slower to revisit the issue, but when he did his statements were scientifically based.

---

That's not what the man said. He said that he adjusted public statements about the question of what he believed would be required for herd immunity based on polling data. That's irresponsible.

---

Wrong.

---

Are you calling him a liar (he definitely said that he adjusted what he was saying publicly because of polling data) or do you believe it is not irresponsible to adjust public statements based on unrelated polling data?

---

He made scientifically based statements, the timing of which was influenced by the polls.

---

He made statements based on his reading of polls in an effort to manipulate public behavior. You might appreciate the noble lie. I don't.

---

I've yet to see the lie pointed out. I think we can agree that he undermined his trust by mentioning the polls. What's curious is that you seem intent on undermining it further by selectively quoting and distorting his statements. I'd expect that from a hard core anti-vaxxer, but in your case it's a bit perplexing.

Bottom line is that he changed his mind and picked an opportune time to say so. None of this has anything to do with the substance of his message, which is accurate. We need more people vaccinated.

---

I posted what he said. It is not distorted. It is his quote and it is not chopped up or misrepresented.

---

You misrepresent it when you deny the relevant context. He did in fact say the science had changed but he hesitated to announce it because of the polls.

---

The behavior you describe and which I have bolded above in your post is irresponsible.

---

Why, was there an emergency?

---

We have been in an ongoing emergency for the better part of a year and a half, but what you describe would be irresponsible whether or not there was an emergency.

---

Why? Was there a three-week window during which everyone must be vaccinated or forever lose their chance? Was ten percent of the population checking the news every day, waiting to change its mind based on Fauci's herd immunity estimate? What were the consequences of this madcap behavior on his part?

---

The consequences are that, along with some of his other statements, he seriously damaged his own credibility and, with it, the credibility of the societal institution he represents. Now, when he makes public statements, those who are familiar with him will not be particularly inclined to believe him or follow his advice. I know that I can no longer take what he says at face value given his record of saying he was publicly telling something other than the whole truth as he believes it to be so that he could manipulate public behavior. It was irresponsible of him to use that strategy.

For some, there was a three-week window because they caught it and died in the meantime. Were people influenced by what he said about herd immunity? He certainly believed they would be influenced by what he said about it, which was why he decided to tell less than the whole truth about his best scientific judgment.

---

Your first paragraph repeats what I said earlier, that he undermined his credibility by mentioning the polls. As to the rest, you have to remember the uncertainty involved. It would be one thing if he possessed certain facts and chose to conceal them. What he had was more like a growing suspicion which, although factually based, could yet be wrong. He was also working for the president in at least a de facto political role. Trump, incredibly enough, was still pushing natural herd immunity, which some of his officials claimed could be achieved with a 20 percent infection rate. Fauci had to weigh the risk of being ignored or silenced altogether if he got too far ahead of the lines, and for what? A minor tweak to an estimate that was hardly more than aspirational at that point (and sadly still is).

I tend to agree that he should keep it simple and say what's what, at least to the extent he knows. But the claim that started all this outrage - that he lied in order to manipulate the public without scientific evidence - is itself a lie.

Mothra said:

---

Yup, and he's been caught more than once telling the public something different from the truth or whole truth, whether about masks or herd immunity.

---

Also incorrect. He was up front about masks from the beginning.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yup, and he's been caught more than once telling the public something different from the truth or whole truth, whether about masks or herd immunity.

---

Also incorrect. He was up front about masks from the beginning.

---

Fauci was anything but candid or honest, from the very start.

Sorry to hurt your feelings, but your idol is a hypocrite and a bigot, Sam.

---

Carlos Santana is neither a hypocrite nor a bigot, but thanks for your input!

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yup, and he's been caught more than once telling the public something different from the truth or whole truth, whether about masks or herd immunity.

---

Also incorrect. He was up front about masks from the beginning.

---

Fauci was anything but candid or honest, from the very start.

Sorry to hurt your feelings, but your idol is a hypocrite and a bigot, Sam.

---

Carlos Santana is neither a hypocrite nor a bigot, but thanks for your input!

---

OK, I meant Fauci, your other idol.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yup, and he's been caught more than once telling the public something different from the truth or whole truth, whether about masks or herd immunity.

---

Also incorrect. He was up front about masks from the beginning.

---

Cocaine is a helluva drug.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "So let's give credit where it's due."

Absolutely no credit is due Dr. Fauci. Very much the opposite in his case.

---

Yea, he has been all over the place. He is basically a lifetime politician so that is to be expected. Whatever direction the wind is blowing, he will turn. I knew he couldn't be taken seriously when as a 78 year old man he wasn't wearing a mask at a ballgame. Should have been to set his own example.

The numbers are way down, that is good. Really good. A few reasons.

A lot of people have gotten it, and have some immunity. I would bet close to 100 million have had it looking at expected mortality rates of about 6/10 of 1%.

A lot of people have gotten the shot and have some immunity. 41.2% fully vaccinated over 50% at least one shot.

And some have gotten the illness, and have the shot both.

Still even with the most recent week we lost over 2700 people to Covid, that rate is still a bit over 140,000 a year.

Fauci flat out lied to congress. I'm old enough to remember when that was treated like a crime.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yup, and he's been caught more than once telling the public something different from the truth or whole truth, whether about masks or herd immunity.

---

Also incorrect. He was up front about masks from the beginning.

---

Fauci was anything but candid or honest, from the very start.

Sorry to hurt your feelings, but your idol is a hypocrite and a bigot, Sam.

---

Carlos Santana is neither a hypocrite nor a bigot, but thanks for your input!

---

OK, I meant Fauci, your other idol.

---

Some of you Trumpniks hate Fauci so much, if he came out in favor of coronavirus I swear y'all would be against it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yup, and he's been caught more than once telling the public something different from the truth or whole truth, whether about masks or herd immunity.

---

Also incorrect. He was up front about masks from the beginning.

---

Fauci was anything but candid or honest, from the very start.

Sorry to hurt your feelings, but your idol is a hypocrite and a bigot, Sam.

---

Carlos Santana is neither a hypocrite nor a bigot, but thanks for your input!

---

OK, I meant Fauci, your other idol.

---

Some of you Trumpniks hate Fauci so much, if he came out in favor of coronavirus I swear y'all would be against it.

---

Funny how the Left always assumes anyone criticizing a hypocrite or political blowhard must be devoted to the former President, rather than a reasonably unhappy citizen.

Sam continues to prove that Rational Sam has been usurped and replaced by Establishment Junta Sam.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yup, and he's been caught more than once telling the public something different from the truth or whole truth, whether about masks or herd immunity.

---

Also incorrect. He was up front about masks from the beginning.

---

Fauci was anything but candid or honest, from the very start.

Sorry to hurt your feelings, but your idol is a hypocrite and a bigot, Sam.

---

Carlos Santana is neither a hypocrite nor a bigot, but thanks for your input!

---

OK, I meant Fauci, your other idol.

---

Some of you Trumpniks hate Fauci so much, if he came out in favor of coronavirus I swear y'all would be against it.

---

Funny how the Left always assumes anyone criticizing a hypocrite or political blowhard must be devoted to the former President...

---

It's kind of a giveaway when you refer to non-Trumpist Republicans as "the Left."

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yup, and he's been caught more than once telling the public something different from the truth or whole truth, whether about masks or herd immunity.

---

Also incorrect. He was up front about masks from the beginning.

---

You are a liar.

Now about that quote...

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yup, and he's been caught more than once telling the public something different from the truth or whole truth, whether about masks or herd immunity.

---

Also incorrect. He was up front about masks from the beginning.

---

Fauci was anything but candid or honest, from the very start.

Sorry to hurt your feelings, but your idol is a hypocrite and a bigot, Sam.

---

Carlos Santana is neither a hypocrite nor a bigot, but thanks for your input!

---

OK, I meant Fauci, your other idol.

---

I think this is his idol. Or it might be Sam himself.