The former top health official said he was invoking the 5th Amendment to avoid the possibility that Republicans on the Senate committee might try to prosecute him for perjury.
Am I missing something because the link about masks seems to contradict what you are saying.
From the link
"Social media posts cite a February 2020 email in which Dr Anthony Fauci advised against mask use as evidence that face coverings do not prevent the spread of Covid-19. But the email from the top US infectious disease specialist reflected the consensus among health authorities early in the Covid-19 emergency, before it was determined that widespread mask use helps curb transmission of the disease. "
From what I recall Feb 2020 was so early on that most people thought it was some nonsense limited to a far away land.
I’d be surprised if anyone had any good choices right at the start. Very limited data to draw from.
The claimed need for restraint was driven by Fauci’s belief that public demand would cut into professional medical supply. But this was largely an economic concern, not a medical one. Same shit we saw with the AIDS epidemic, where the Federal response was bungled with poor consideration of actual scientific study.
He changed his tune when he received a bunch of push-back from the medical community.
But by then the damage was done. Anti-maskers (and AIDS-fearmongers) continued to quote his original releases as evidence. Same as with the “Vaccines cause Autism” study that continues to be relentlessly flogged, long after it was thoroughly debunked.
Am I missing something because the link about masks seems to contradict what you are saying.
From the link
"Social media posts cite a February 2020 email in which Dr Anthony Fauci advised against mask use as evidence that face coverings do not prevent the spread of Covid-19. But the email from the top US infectious disease specialist reflected the consensus among health authorities early in the Covid-19 emergency, before it was determined that widespread mask use helps curb transmission of the disease. "
I’m just waking up, so not clearly understanding.
From what I recall Feb 2020 was so early on that most people thought it was some nonsense limited to a far away land.
I’d be surprised if anyone had any good choices right at the start. Very limited data to draw from.
Exactly, the article shows that he, like many others understood something, but that his opinions changed as time progressed?
shrug It’s Factcheck.org so they put their own spin on it. But the fact that widespread mask use curbed transmission of disease was well established during the SARS and MERS outbreaks of prior years. Nevermind the well-known benefit against influenza, established at least as early as 2013.
The claimed need for restraint was driven by Fauci’s belief that public demand would cut into professional medical supply. But this was largely an economic concern, not a medical one. Same shit we saw with the AIDS epidemic, where the Federal response was bungled with poor consideration of actual scientific study.
But he changed his tune as data come about right?
He changed his tune when he received a bunch of push-back from the medical community.
But by then the damage was done. Anti-maskers (and AIDS-fearmongers) continued to quote his original releases as evidence. Same as with the “Vaccines cause Autism” study that continues to be relentlessly flogged, long after it was thoroughly debunked.
Isn’t that what science is about? Its a good thing no?
Because Republicans rejoiced at the idea of a Gay Disease. They changed their mind when some in congress died from it.